# migrations

dir: embeddings_queue
filename: 00001-embeddings.sqlite.sql
hash: d3755dfd232be8e8301f4d7fcfb3a486
sql:
CREATE TABLE embeddings_queue (
    seq_id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY,
    created_at TIMESTAMP NOT NULL DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
    operation INTEGER NOT NULL,
    topic TEXT NOT NULL,
    id TEXT NOT NULL,
    vector BLOB,
    encoding TEXT,
    metadata TEXT
);


dir: sysdb
filename: 00001-collections.sqlite.sql
hash: 38352d725ad1c16074fac420b22b4633
sql:
CREATE TABLE collections (
    id TEXT PRIMARY KEY,
    name TEXT NOT NULL,
    topic TEXT NOT NULL,
    UNIQUE (name)
);

CREATE TABLE collection_metadata (
    collection_id TEXT REFERENCES collections(id) ON DELETE CASCADE,
    key TEXT NOT NULL,
    str_value TEXT,
    int_value INTEGER,
    float_value REAL,
    PRIMARY KEY (collection_id, key)
);


dir: sysdb
filename: 00002-segments.sqlite.sql
hash: 2913cb6a503055a95f625448037e8912
sql:
CREATE TABLE segments (
    id TEXT PRIMARY KEY,
    type TEXT NOT NULL,
    scope TEXT NOT NULL,
    topic TEXT,
    collection TEXT REFERENCES collection(id)
);

CREATE TABLE segment_metadata (
    segment_id TEXT  REFERENCES segments(id) ON DELETE CASCADE,
    key TEXT NOT NULL,
    str_value TEXT,
    int_value INTEGER,
    float_value REAL,
    PRIMARY KEY (segment_id, key)
);


dir: sysdb
filename: 00004-tenants-databases.sqlite.sql
hash: 048867ce8fcdefe4023c7110e4433591
sql:
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS tenants (
    id TEXT PRIMARY KEY,
    UNIQUE (id)
);

CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS databases (
    id TEXT PRIMARY KEY, -- unique globally
    name TEXT NOT NULL, -- unique per tenant
    tenant_id TEXT NOT NULL REFERENCES tenants(id) ON DELETE CASCADE,
    UNIQUE (tenant_id, name) -- Ensure that a tenant has only one database with a given name
);

CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS collections_tmp (
    id TEXT PRIMARY KEY, -- unique globally
    name TEXT NOT NULL, -- unique per database
    topic TEXT NOT NULL,
    dimension INTEGER,
    database_id TEXT NOT NULL REFERENCES databases(id) ON DELETE CASCADE,
    UNIQUE (name, database_id)
);

-- Create default tenant and database
INSERT OR REPLACE INTO tenants (id) VALUES ('default_tenant'); -- The default tenant id is 'default_tenant' others are UUIDs
INSERT OR REPLACE INTO databases (id, name, tenant_id) VALUES ('00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000', 'default_database', 'default_tenant');

INSERT OR REPLACE INTO collections_tmp (id, name, topic, dimension, database_id)
    SELECT id, name, topic, dimension, '00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000' FROM collections;
DROP TABLE collections;
ALTER TABLE collections_tmp RENAME TO collections;


dir: sysdb
filename: 00005-remove-topic.sqlite.sql
hash: b1367c826b8fba5f96f27befdc1d42d2
sql:
-- Remove the topic column from the Collections and Segments tables

ALTER TABLE collections DROP COLUMN topic;
ALTER TABLE segments DROP COLUMN topic;


dir: sysdb
filename: 00006-collection-segment-metadata.sqlite.sql
hash: 4eea7468935bf25d4604a0fed2366116
sql:
-- SQLite does not support adding check with alter table, as a result, adding a check
-- involve creating a new table and copying the data over. It is over kill with adding
-- a boolean type column. The application write to the table needs to ensure the data
-- integrity.
ALTER TABLE collection_metadata ADD COLUMN bool_value INTEGER;
ALTER TABLE segment_metadata ADD COLUMN bool_value INTEGER;


dir: sysdb
filename: 00007-collection-config.sqlite.sql
hash: 1c7e63bba346a42a18b6ab7f1c989bed
sql:
-- Stores collection configuration dictionaries.
ALTER TABLE collections ADD COLUMN config_json_str TEXT;


dir: sysdb
filename: 00008-maintenance-log.sqlite.sql
hash: 0a0e7e93111a01789addf64961c6127c
sql:
-- Records when database maintenance operations are performed.
-- At time of creation, this table is only used to record vacuum operations.
CREATE TABLE maintenance_log (
  id INT PRIMARY KEY,
  timestamp INT NOT NULL,
  operation TEXT NOT NULL
);


dir: sysdb
filename: 00009-segment-collection-not-null.sqlite.sql
hash: 054355aef9e63702bf54ea29e61563f1
sql:
-- This makes segments.collection non-nullable.
CREATE TABLE segments_temp (
    id TEXT PRIMARY KEY,
    type TEXT NOT NULL,
    scope TEXT NOT NULL,
    collection TEXT REFERENCES collection(id) NOT NULL
);

INSERT INTO segments_temp SELECT * FROM segments;
DROP TABLE segments;
ALTER TABLE segments_temp RENAME TO segments;


dir: metadb
filename: 00001-embedding-metadata.sqlite.sql
hash: 2b4cf52c4bb2676e21d6860a4409f856
sql:
CREATE TABLE embeddings (
    id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY,
    segment_id TEXT NOT NULL,
    embedding_id TEXT NOT NULL,
    seq_id BLOB NOT NULL,
    created_at TIMESTAMP NOT NULL DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
    UNIQUE (segment_id, embedding_id)
);

CREATE TABLE embedding_metadata (
    id INTEGER REFERENCES embeddings(id),
    key TEXT NOT NULL,
    string_value TEXT,
    int_value INTEGER,
    float_value REAL,
    PRIMARY KEY (id, key)
);

CREATE TABLE max_seq_id (
    segment_id TEXT PRIMARY KEY,
    seq_id BLOB NOT NULL
);

CREATE VIRTUAL TABLE embedding_fulltext USING fts5(id, string_value);


dir: metadb
filename: 00002-embedding-metadata.sqlite.sql
hash: 12a570f7121b3a8ce750a2a7c36da20f
sql:
-- SQLite does not support adding check with alter table, as a result, adding a check
-- involve creating a new table and copying the data over. It is over kill with adding
-- a boolean type column. The application write to the table needs to ensure the data
-- integrity.
ALTER TABLE embedding_metadata ADD COLUMN bool_value INTEGER


dir: metadb
filename: 00003-full-text-tokenize.sqlite.sql
hash: f97ad6334aeaa8f419f01110b648b97a
sql:
CREATE VIRTUAL TABLE embedding_fulltext_search USING fts5(string_value, tokenize='trigram');
INSERT INTO embedding_fulltext_search (rowid, string_value) SELECT rowid, string_value FROM embedding_metadata;
DROP TABLE embedding_fulltext;


dir: metadb
filename: 00004-metadata-indices.sqlite.sql
hash: fb36603a45ee2cd0254cef3ef86585e8
sql:
CREATE INDEX IF NOT EXISTS embedding_metadata_int_value ON embedding_metadata (key, int_value) WHERE int_value IS NOT NULL;
CREATE INDEX IF NOT EXISTS embedding_metadata_float_value ON embedding_metadata (key, float_value) WHERE float_value IS NOT NULL;
CREATE INDEX IF NOT EXISTS embedding_metadata_string_value ON embedding_metadata (key, string_value) WHERE string_value IS NOT NULL;


# embeddings_queue

created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 0a5aaec6-4cf4-43d6-9267-598085bea492
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "SOIL TESTING HANDBOOK\n\nFOR PROFESSIONALS IN\n\nAGRICULTURE, HORTICULTURE, NUTRIENT AND RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT\n\nTHIRD EDITION\n\nFormerly \"Soil Testing Handbook for Professional Agriculturalists\"\n\nWritten/Revised by:\n\nBruce R. Hoskins Assistant Scientist Maine Soil Testing Service/Analytical Lab\n\nMaine Forestry & Agricultural Experiment Station University of Maine 1997\n\nLaboratory Address:\n\nMaine Soil Testing Service 5722 Deering Hall University of Maine Orono, Maine 04469-5722 207-581-2945 207-581-2934 207-581-3591\n\ne-mail: hoskins@maine.edu\n\nWeb site http://anlab.umesci.maine.edu\n\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\n\nSoil Testing Conventions in the U.S.\n\nOverview of Maine Soil Testing Service Kits and Forms\n\nSoil Test Sampling Kits\n\nThe Field and Soil Sample Information Form\n\nThe Soil Test Report/Recommendation Form\n\nEvaluating Components of Soil Fertility\n\nSoil pH\n\nLime Index: Buffer pH and Exchangeable Acidity\n\nCalculating Exchangeable Acidity\n\nIndexing Nutrient Availability\n\nSoil CEC\n\npH Effect on CEC\n\nOther Properties Affecting CEC\n\nPercent Saturation\n\nCEC Adjustment\n\nNutrient Balance\n\nSoil Organic Matter\n\nAdditional Components\n\nInterpretation of Relative Soil Fertility Levels\n\nRecommendations\n\nFactors Influencing Recommendations\n\nCalculating the Lime Requirement\n\nReasons for Liming Soils\n\nSelecting Liming Materials\n\nLime Sources\n\nParticle Size Effect\n\nSoil pH Effect\n\nDegree of Incorporation\n\nTime of Lime Application\n\nCalcium Requirement\n\nMagnesium Requirement\n\nMagnesium Sources\n\nPotash Requirement\n\nPhosphate Requirement\n\nNitrogen Requirement\n\nDetermining Fertilizer Blend and Application Rate\n\nNutrient Content of Manures and Residuals\n\nReferences\n\nAppendices\n\nExample Report/Recommendation Form\n\nAgronomic Crops - topdressing\n\nAgronomic Crops - seeding\n\nTurf Crops - topdress & seeding\n\nCommercial Vegetables\n\nHome Garden - chemical fertilizer\n\nGeneral Organic\n\nHome Tree Fruit\n\nCommercial Fruit\n\nCommercial Potatoes\n\nForestry\n\nOrnamentals\n\nMaine Soil Testing Service Analytical Procedures"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 422ea304-cfa6-4bef-b40f-5269176604f8
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Phosphate Requirement\n\nNitrogen Requirement\n\nDetermining Fertilizer Blend and Application Rate\n\nNutrient Content of Manures and Residuals\n\nReferences\n\nAppendices\n\nExample Report/Recommendation Form\n\nAgronomic Crops - topdressing\n\nAgronomic Crops - seeding\n\nTurf Crops - topdress & seeding\n\nCommercial Vegetables\n\nHome Garden - chemical fertilizer\n\nGeneral Organic\n\nHome Tree Fruit\n\nCommercial Fruit\n\nCommercial Potatoes\n\nForestry\n\nOrnamentals\n\nMaine Soil Testing Service Analytical Procedures\n\nSOIL TESTING CONVENTIONS IN THE U.S.\n\nSoil testing is far from a uniform practice across the United States. Soil fertility testing is really the combination of three discrete but interrelated processes: analysis, interpretation, and recommendation (Eckert,1987). Many differences in these three processes exist between labs in different parts of the country and can be the source of great confusion. To help understand why these differences exist, an examination of each of the three processes is useful.\n\nIn sample analysis, the important components of soil fertility which may limit crop production are evaluated in the laboratory according to standardized methods. Since the early 1900's, laboratory procedures have been developed in each region which work well with soils and crops in the area and address those factors which are most commonly limiting to production. If a nutrient or other soil component does not usually limit crop production in the area, it is often not evaluated in order to limit the cost of the service to customers. Laboratory testing procedures are designed to provide consistent year to year results, as quickly and economically as possible.\n\nSpecific procedures often vary from one region to another, depending on climate, soil parent material, soil nutrient chemistry, and the types of crops grown in each region. Phosphorus testing can be used as a good example."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 13daeb9a-e3b3-4f3d-9451-1b0ed3f7abb0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Specific procedures often vary from one region to another, depending on climate, soil parent material, soil nutrient chemistry, and the types of crops grown in each region. Phosphorus testing can be used as a good example.\n\nThe University of Maine uses a (Modified) Morgan nutrient extraction procedure, which was developed at the University of Connecticut in the 1930's for use on acidic New England soils (Morgan,1941;Lunt et.al.,1950) Indeed, almost all New England State Universities and Cornell University still use a Morgan extract. The Morgan extract is a \"universal\" extractant, meaning all major nutrients (including phosphorus) and many micronutrients can all be measured in the one extract. The Bray phosphorus test was originally developed in Illinois for use on slightly acidic to neutral, high organic matter prairie soils (Bray,1942;Bray & Kurtz,1945). The Olsen phosphorus test was originally developed for use on arid alkaline soils (Olsen et. al., 1954;Olsen & Sommers, 1982). Three different Mehlich (universal) soil extractants were developed in North Carolina for use on sandy coastal soils (Mehlich: 1953, 1978, 1984). These different phosphorus extraction procedures, originally developed in different physiographic regions of the country, give quite different numerical results for available phosphorus level. But, numerical results are only the first step in the overall process."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 7ebe3c2b-339e-4e7a-a818-f529fe1201c5
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Once the analytical results are obtained, the second process is to interpret these results relative to the soil's suitability to support plant growth and to maximize yield and quality from the crop to be grown. Interpretation is, of course, specific to the procedures used in the laboratory and the requirements of the crop being grown. Each individual testing system has been calibrated over several decades on soils and crops grown in each respective region, through greenhouse and field calibration trials. Soil test calibration information is also commonly shared within a region between states with common soils, crops, and testing systems.\n\nThe key to soil test calibration is to determine the \"critical\" test level for each major nutrient for each crop. The critical level is the minimum test level which statistically correlates to maximum yield. In other words, it is the lowest test value necessary to support the highest yields attainable in the area (Dahnke,1993;Cate & Nelson,1971). Adding a nutrient to raise the soil test level above this critical value will not produce an economic return on the cost of that addition. Once the critical soil test level for a nutrient is reached, crop yield will be limited by some other factor such as soil moisture, length of growing season, weed pressure, an insect or disease problem, or another nutrient level."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 13cdae8e-b6b4-4920-9335-56476928e393
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "After the critical test level has been established for a nutrient for a given crop, the interpretation scale can be set up to divide test results into general categories. The University of Maine uses the categories \"Low-Medium-Optimum-Excessive\". Other category names and numbers of categories are used in other states (Beegle,1995). Each category is defined by the probability of a yield increase from the addition of a nutrient already present at a given test level for the crop being grown (Olson et.al.,1987; Beegle,1995). One of the keys to understanding any interpretation system and its categories is that it is not absolute, but is tied to statistical probability.\n\nThe third discrete process, after testing and interpretation, is to make a recommendation for the addition of nutrients. The recommendation process first must determine whether an additional quantity of a nutrient is actually needed at all, usually by whether the test level is above or below the critical level. If the test level is below the critical level for a soil component for the crop being grown, then the recommendation process also determines how much should be added. There are several different philosophies used in making recommendations for soil amendments. For most crop systems, the University of Maine uses the \"soil buildup plus crop removal\" method. Other states and labs may use differing philosophies, such as the \"sufficiency level\" method (Eckert,1987;Olson et.al.,1987). For some crop systems, such as vegetable gardens and ornamentals, UMaine also uses a sufficiency level-type system. Each is a legitimate way to manage soil nutrient levels to maximize crop yield, but can result in different recommendations from the same test results."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: bc3dbaad-b9bd-4494-9654-f0c705617f3a
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Interpretation and recommendation both depend on the specific analytical procedures used and on the state or region of the country in which they are used. It is important to note that a sample sent to a laboratory outside the region from which it was taken may not be tested according to the methods developed for use on soils from the region of origin. The interpretation of the test results also may not be appropriate for a soil and/or cropping system in another region of the country. That is not to say that different testing systems should not be used within any given region, provided that each has been appropriately calibrated for soils and crop management systems in that region. Some laboratories can even provide, on request, different regional testing methods and appropriate interpretations for samples from outside their own region. In any case, it is important to be sure that the testing methods and interpretations used by a prospective lab are appropriate for the region from which the soil sample was taken.\n\nThe remainder of this Handbook will address the three parts of the soil testing process as practiced at the University of Maine in more detail, along with some of the underlying and associated concepts of soils and soil fertility.\n\nOVERVIEW OF MAINE SOIL TESTING SERVICE KITS AND FORMS\n\nSoil Test Sampling Kits\n\nSoil sampling kits are available at no charge at all County Extension offices. Most county Soil & Water Conservation Districts (SWCD), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and Farm Services Agency (FSA) offices also have kits available. They can also be obtained directly from the Soil Testing laboratory at the address and phone number on the title page."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 3611d437-034b-457d-858a-598df781b6e8
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "OVERVIEW OF MAINE SOIL TESTING SERVICE KITS AND FORMS\n\nSoil Test Sampling Kits\n\nSoil sampling kits are available at no charge at all County Extension offices. Most county Soil & Water Conservation Districts (SWCD), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and Farm Services Agency (FSA) offices also have kits available. They can also be obtained directly from the Soil Testing laboratory at the address and phone number on the title page.\n\nA Soil Sampling Kit consists of a collapsible paper box and a Field and Soil Sample Information Form. A composite soil sample should be taken according to instructions on the back page of the form. The user should identify each sample with a reasonably short, but descriptive name or number (15 letters and/or numbers maximum). Also record the sample identity on the front of page 1 of the Field form. Applicable questions on the first page should be answered where appropriate for each sample. Not all questions apply to all crop or management situations. The form has space for ten individual samples, so it is not necessary to use a separate form for each sample.\n\nThe completed Information Form should be included in the shipping container when mailed to the laboratory. Please do not put the Field form or check inside the box with the soil sample. Please do not send cash.\n\nThe Field and Soil Sample Information Form\n\nFollowing is a partial description of important information requested from the user on the Field form.\n\nRecommendation Crop Code\n\nThe crop code is the key to translating the test results into recommendations for the crop of interest. Common crops grown in Maine are coded under eight crop groups on page 3 of the Field form. The crop groups for which codes are provided are as follows:\n\nAgronomic Crops: corn, cereal grains, forage crops.\n\nTurf: lawns, athletic fields, golf courses.\n\nCommercial Vegetables: more than one acre of any vegetable crop."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: c138d163-be44-4bba-b3ad-b478ff734bd0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Recommendation Crop Code\n\nThe crop code is the key to translating the test results into recommendations for the crop of interest. Common crops grown in Maine are coded under eight crop groups on page 3 of the Field form. The crop groups for which codes are provided are as follows:\n\nAgronomic Crops: corn, cereal grains, forage crops.\n\nTurf: lawns, athletic fields, golf courses.\n\nCommercial Vegetables: more than one acre of any vegetable crop.\n\nGeneral Garden Crops (Conventional or Organic): less than one acre of mixed vegetable or small fruit crops grown using chemical or organic fertilizers.\n\nCommercial Fruits: highbush blueberries, cranberries, or more than one acre of apples, stone fruit, strawberries, or raspberries.\n\nForestry: general forestry (plantations), Christmas trees, tree nurseries.\n\nCommercial Potatoes: more than one acre of processing, table stock, or seed potatoes.\n\nOrnamentals: annuals, perennials, shrubs, broadleaf and evergreen shade trees.\n\nSelect the code number which best fits the crop to be grown. Please note that there are separate codes for seeding and for topdressing of several different crops. Please be sure you have the correct crop code for your particular situation. If no match can be found, you may write the name of the crop for which a recommendation is needed in the crop code space on the form. The laboratory will assign an appropriate code number to the crop so that a recommendation can be computed. It is not practical to list all possible crops on the code sheet. If an unlisted crop comes up frequently enough, it will be assigned a code number when the Field form is revised.\n\nMore than one crop code may be chosen if more than one recommendation is needed. Separate Report/Recommendation forms will be sent for each crop code chosen.\n\nYield Goal"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: f4315f30-73dd-4811-adda-e25e58c469f4
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "More than one crop code may be chosen if more than one recommendation is needed. Separate Report/Recommendation forms will be sent for each crop code chosen.\n\nYield Goal\n\nAssumed yield goals for all forage crops are listed in the Agronomic Crops section of this Handbook. If you wish to manage for a yield which is significantly higher or lower than the yield listed, write in the expected yield in the Yield Goal column. Recommendations or nitrogen, phosphate, and potash application rates will be adjusted accordingly.\n\nPotato Rotation Crops\n\nIn situations where recommendations are being requested for crops grown in rotation with commercial potatoes (ex. oats, corn, or clover) and where potatoes will be grown in the same field within the next 2 to 3 years, the potato rotation column labeled \"yes\" should be checked. Lime will be recommended to maintain soil pH in the proper range for potato production.\n\nThe potato rotation column should also be checked for home gardens (conventional or organic) where potatoes are being grown. Additional pH management information will then be included for garden potatoes.\n\nSpecial pH Management Level\n\nThe pH level of the soil is typically adjusted to provide for optimum nutrient availability while taking into account the pH tolerance of the particular crop being grown. However, other considerations may be included in determining the pH management level of your soil, such as biosolids or ash application regulations or plant species/variety requirements not covered under the crop code options listed. Unless otherwise indicated by the user, the lime recommendations and the CEC and nutrient balance calculations on the Report form will be based on the target pH management level listed on the back of page 3 of the Field form. If you wish to manage the soil pH at some other level than that shown on the list, please choose the code (1-7) on page 1 which most closely matches the pH you wish to maintain."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 7cd88bec-f939-480f-835b-d45efb14de11
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "A pH management code 2 will report CEC and nutrient balance at the current pH level of the soil, showing all conditions as they currently exist in the field rather than at a projected target pH. No lime will be recommended if this pH management code is chosen.\n\nYou may choose more than one pH management level for any one sample. An extra Report/Recommendation form will be generated for each additional pH management code chosen.\n\nRequest for Confidentiality\n\nUnless otherwise requested, a copy of your Report/Recommendation form will automatically be forwarded to your county Extension office. A copy of all reports with recommendations for forage seedings will also be forwarded to your county FSA office, to meet requirements for USDA cost-sharing programs. If you do not want a copy of your report sent to these agencies, check the box in the lower left corner of page 1 of the Field form.\n\nProblems\n\nIf specific problems are being experienced or if a special analysis is required, the problem should be explained in writing on the back of page 1 of the Field Form. The laboratory staff will determine if additional analyses are needed and forward a copy of test results to an Extension specialist or county Educator for more intensive help with the problem. The laboratory will notify the user if additional charges are incurred.\n\nAvailable Tests and Test Fees\n\nThe routine Standard Soil Test includes pH, lime requirement, organic matter, available phosphorus (P), potassium (K), calcium (Ca), and Magnesium (Mg). Available zinc (Zn)\n\nis also reported for commercial corn and potato crops. All homeowner samples (gardens, turf, and ornamentals) are also screened for unusually high lead (Pb) levels. These tests are provided at a charge of $12.00 per sample (eventually subject to change)."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 4a8de894-8b31-409b-85d3-ff12ac6f6cdc
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Available Tests and Test Fees\n\nThe routine Standard Soil Test includes pH, lime requirement, organic matter, available phosphorus (P), potassium (K), calcium (Ca), and Magnesium (Mg). Available zinc (Zn)\n\nis also reported for commercial corn and potato crops. All homeowner samples (gardens, turf, and ornamentals) are also screened for unusually high lead (Pb) levels. These tests are provided at a charge of $12.00 per sample (eventually subject to change).\n\nNon-routine or special tests can be performed either for free or for a small additional cost. The most commonly requested additional analyses and their prices are listed on the back of the Field form. Several of these can be requested by checking the appropriate column on the front of page 1. To obtain prices and availability of other analytical services not shown on the Field form, consult your local county Extension office or contact the Analytical lab at the above address and phone number.\n\nThe Soil Test Report/Recommendation Form\n\nLaboratory test results are reported on a standardized computer form. An example Report form is presented as the first appendix in this handbook. A copy is mailed directly to the user from the laboratory. A second copy is sent to the local county Cooperative Extension office or to an Extension crop specialist for use in responding to questions the user might have about results and recommendations or specific problems. A third copy, for forage seedings only, is sent to the county FSA office for use in cost-sharing conservation programs. A fourth copy is retained by the laboratory for reference. The user may request that copies not be sent to Extension or FSA (see Request for Confidentiality, above), in which case only copies for the user and the laboratory will be generated."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: c5fdf531-1d41-40a7-bdb4-555c9dbf03ad
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Test results are also permanently stored on computer database for future summarization and retrieval. Copies of the original report can be reprinted if lost or recommendations for additional crops or pH management levels may be requested, all free of charge.\n\nRelative Nutrient Levels\n\nThe bar graphs at the center of the Report form translate the test results into relative soil fertility ratings. This enables the user to visually determine the general fertility status of the soil. Each bar of X's provides a continuous rating for each nutrient, the soil pH, and soil organic matter relative to the optimum range for the specific crop requested. Definitions of interpretive levels appear later on.\n\nLime and Fertilizer Recommendations\n\nCalculated lime and nutrient requirements are given in the middle of the Report form along with specific management statements designed to maximize efficiency of applied nutrients. The calculated nutrient requirements represent the amount of each nutrient needed to supplement the present level in the soil in order to maximize yield under Maine conditions, if there are no other factors limiting production.\n\nFor commercial growers the nutrient requirements are stated in terms of pounds of lime, nitrogen, phosphate (P2O5), and potash (K2O) per acre. Since commercial growers use relatively large amounts of fertilizer, it is often cheaper to purchase nutrients as bulk blends developed on the basis of the calculated nutrient requirements. Recommending each nutrient separately also gives the commercial operator more flexibility in filling nutrient requirements from a variety of sources. An operator may choose, for instance, to fill the calculated requirements with a combination of animal manure, boiler ash, and chemical fertilizer rather than blended fertilizer alone."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 0495fd41-e9e3-471f-88f3-f79b50dda459
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "The recommendations for turf, home gardens, and ornamentals are translated into pounds of ready-mixed N-P2O5-K2O fertilizer per 100 or 1000 square feet, since the small total amount of fertilizer required dictates use of commonly available blends. A typical management statement in these cases advises the user to substitute a grade of similar N- P2O5-K2O ratio (and to adjust the application rate) if the listed analysis is not available.\n\nLime and fertilizer recommendations will be dealt with in more detail in later sections.\n\nLaboratory Results\n\nLaboratory test results and customer/sample information are all permanently stored in a soil sample database. A PC-base program converts the laboratory data into numerical results that appear on the Report form. If numerical data is maintained on a given field and accumulated over a period of years, the user can determine the effectiveness of an applied fertility program. The laboratory results at the bottom of the form give the following specific soil properties:\n\nSoil pH\n\nLime index (lime buffer capacity)\n\nAvailable P, K, Mg, and Ca as pounds/acre\n\nEstimated soil cation exchange capacity (CEC) at the target pH management level\n\nPercent saturation of the soil CEC with K, Mg, Ca, and acidity (nutrient balance)\n\nPercent organic matter\n\nAvailable Zn as parts per million on applicable crops\n\nExchangeable Na, total soluble salts, nitrate-N where requested\n\nLead scan results for gardens, turf, and ornamentals\n\nWhere applicable, the optimum range of numerical values for these results are given for the specific crop/management situation for which recommendations are requested. The optimum range appears directly underneath the test results for each nutrient or other component."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: a7de854c-2de6-49b9-96cd-5c836c166239
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Percent organic matter\n\nAvailable Zn as parts per million on applicable crops\n\nExchangeable Na, total soluble salts, nitrate-N where requested\n\nLead scan results for gardens, turf, and ornamentals\n\nWhere applicable, the optimum range of numerical values for these results are given for the specific crop/management situation for which recommendations are requested. The optimum range appears directly underneath the test results for each nutrient or other component.\n\nA statement appears just above the first row of numerical results which lists the pH management level requested by the customer or chosen by the lab. This is important in understanding the estimation of CEC, the calculation of nutrient balance, and the calculation of lime and fertilizer recommendations.\n\nAn explanation of the numerical results and sample calculations appear later on.\n\nBilling Information\n\nAt the very bottom of the Report form is a billing statement which shows the current status of the customer's account with the lab, with respect to this one sample. Any payments received will be listed here as well as any remaining balance due for the analytical services provided on this sample. The billing statement line should be treated as a billing invoice. If an invoice number is required, the printed number in the upper right corner of the Report form should be used.\n\nEVALUATING COMPONENTS OF SOIL FERTILITY\n\nThe discussion and example calculations which follow will help to explain the significance of the laboratory data on the Report form.\n\nSoil pH\n\nThe soil pH appears on the left end of the laboratory results line. It is defined as the negative log of the hydrogen ion activity in the soil solution:\n\npH = - log [H+]"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 5de6f145-4ff7-4b3e-9953-d11f25500225
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "EVALUATING COMPONENTS OF SOIL FERTILITY\n\nThe discussion and example calculations which follow will help to explain the significance of the laboratory data on the Report form.\n\nSoil pH\n\nThe soil pH appears on the left end of the laboratory results line. It is defined as the negative log of the hydrogen ion activity in the soil solution:\n\npH = - log [H+]\n\nThe pH value (also called \"soil reaction\") tells whether or not the soil is acid or alkaline and to what degree. A value between 6.5 and 7.5 is considered neutral, whereas values below 6.5 are acidic and values above 7.5 are alkaline. Relative ratings of degree of acidity and alkalinity are as follows:\n\nSoil Reaction Description pH Range Normal Crop Response Extremely acid Very strongly acid Strongly acid Medium acid Slightly acid Neutral Mildly alkaline Moderately alkaline Strongly alkaline Very strongly alkaline\n\nBelow 4.5 Very Poor* 4.5-5.0 Poor* 5.1-5.5 Moderately good Good 5.6-6.0 Very good 6.1-6.5 Very good 6.6-7.3 7.4-7.8 Moderately good** Poor** 7.9-8.4 Very good** 8.5-9.0 Above 9.0 Few grow\n\nBlueberry, Cranberry, Azalea, Rhododendron, and other acid-loving plants are exceptions.\n\n**Micronutrients become the major limiting factor.\n\nThe optimum soil pH range for the crop requested is listed directly underneath the level found. The ideal range typically covers a full pH unit, usually from 0.5 units below to 0.5 units above the target pH chosen by the lab or requested by the user.\n\nThe bar graph which interprets the soil pH on the Report form is calibrated to reflect the optimum pH of the crop for which recommendations were requested and/or the pH management level requested. This graph will typically show \"above optimum\" if the soil pH exceeds the target pH management level by 0.5 units.\n\nLime Index: Buffer pH and Exchangeable Acidity"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 065b4dd9-94ea-4204-856a-35befcef2402
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "The bar graph which interprets the soil pH on the Report form is calibrated to reflect the optimum pH of the crop for which recommendations were requested and/or the pH management level requested. This graph will typically show \"above optimum\" if the soil pH exceeds the target pH management level by 0.5 units.\n\nLime Index: Buffer pH and Exchangeable Acidity\n\nThe soil is a highly buffered system. The amount of hydrogen ions in the soil solution (soil water) is small and can usually can be neutralized with about a pound of lime per acre. Hydrogen ions in soil solution are in equilibrium with and are replenished by the reserve acidity adsorbed on exchange sites in the soil. The acid ions adsorbed on the soil particles act as a reserve pool which continuously supplies hydrogen ions to the soil solution as they are neutralized. The soil pH cannot be raised to the desired level until this reserve acidity is neutralized. The size of this pool of reserve acidity, also called exchangeable acidity, is what actually determines the lime requirement of the soil.\n\nThe soil lime index value is the key to measuring the pool of reserve acidity. A buffer solution of standardized pH and strength is reacted with the soil. Acid-forming ions (primarily aluminum) held in reserve on exchange sites are forced into solution by mass exchange and are neutralized by the buffer. This results in a depression in the pH of the buffer solution, which is measured after a 30 minute reaction time. It is this ending pH which appears on the Report form as the \"Lime Index 2\" value. The final pH of the buffer solution along with the current pH of the soil are used to quantify the soil acidity to be neutralized and to calculate the pounds of lime needed to raise the soil pH to the desired level."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: cc30c6a9-60f0-4b19-96c3-d6324f3e2500
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Prior to April, 2001 the lime buffer test used was the Shoemaker, McLean, Pratt or SMP buffer method (Shoemaker, McLean, Pratt, 1962), which was designated \"Lime Index\". The SMP method was discontinued due to concerns over toxicity to lab personnel and the volume of hazardous waste generated. Starting in April, 2001 the lime buffer test was changed to the Mehlich buffer method (Mehlich, 1976). The Mehlich buffer is designated as \"Lime Index 2\" on the Report form. The benefits of the Mehlich method include its greater analytical stability (greater precision) and no toxic reagents. Both lime buffer tests were calibrated from lime incubations run during 2000 on representative soils from Maine (Hoskins, 2001 currently unpublished). The two methods gave comparable results in side by side comparisons on several hundred routine samples, using regression equations derived from this incubation data.\n\nCalculating Exchangeable Acidity\n\nFor any combination of current soil pH and lime index, the following calculations are used to predict the milliequivalents of base (as calcium carbonate) which must be added to 100 gm of soil to achieve the target pH listed (Hoskins, 2001 unpublished data). These equations are actually lime response equations, but in practice they are also used as a reasonable approximation of the exchangeable acidity neutralized to achieve the same target pH:\n\npH 7.0 target: 62.6-(2.33 x soil pH)-(7.13 x lime index 2)\n\npH 6.5 target: 51.8-(2.77 x soil pH)-(5.38 x lime index 2)\n\npH 6.0 target: 39.3-(3.69 x soil pH)-(2.83 x lime index 2)"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 02fbca9e-cba9-45f9-96ec-384f0d74a973
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "pH 7.0 target: 62.6-(2.33 x soil pH)-(7.13 x lime index 2)\n\npH 6.5 target: 51.8-(2.77 x soil pH)-(5.38 x lime index 2)\n\npH 6.0 target: 39.3-(3.69 x soil pH)-(2.83 x lime index 2)\n\nSince these equations are statistically derived from experiments, they are only predictors of lime response and exchangeable acidity, not exact measurements. If the current pH of the soil is at or near the target pH of interest, a negative acidity value may result from the calculation. Any negative values should be rounded to zero. See \"Soil pH Effect\" in the lime section for other considerations on the calculation of exchangeable acidity.\n\nThe reserve acidity occupies the same sites in the soil used to hold many of the essential nutrients. When this reserve acidity is neutralized, these sites are free to hold essential plant nutrients and the effective nutrient-holding capacity of the soil is increased. This increase in nutrient-holding capacity with an increase in soil pH is termed \"pH-dependent cation exchange capacity\".\n\nReadily exchangeable acidity at current soil pH is traditionally measured by titrating a potassium chloride extract of the soil (USDA, 1996). This measure of exchangeable acidity can also be approximated from the lime buffer test. To estimate readily exchangeable acidity at the current soil pH, rather than at a target pH, use the following equation (Hoskins, 2001 unpublished data):\n\n20.14-(0.88 x soil pH)-(2.46 x lime index 2)\n\nThis calculated value should be near zero if the soil pH is 5.6 or higher. Again, this is a statistically derived equation which should be rounded to zero if a negative value results.\n\nIndexing Nutrient Availability"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 28138d88-d71a-44de-ad2e-071183da711d
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "20.14-(0.88 x soil pH)-(2.46 x lime index 2)\n\nThis calculated value should be near zero if the soil pH is 5.6 or higher. Again, this is a statistically derived equation which should be rounded to zero if a negative value results.\n\nIndexing Nutrient Availability\n\nTo the right of the pH results are the currently available soil nutrient levels expressed on a pounds per acre basis. These are really projections of the available nutrient levels found in the soil, as it is processed in the lab, expanded to a per acre basis. These projections are based on the rough conversion factor of 2 million pounds of soil in an acre plow layer (6 2/3 inches deep). In other words, the pounds per acre values listed are actually pounds per 2 million pounds of soil.\n\nPounds per acre values are often presented as the quantity of nutrients available for plant uptake, though in reality they are not exact measures of plant nutrient intake for the growing season. More precisely, these values serve as an availability \"index\", a scale which is closely related to actual plant uptake and/or yield (if no other factors limit yield). As long as this close relationship exists for each nutrient, the availability index can be accurately interpreted to determine relative nutrient level and quantity of nutrient (if any) to be amended to the soil to raise that nutrient level to \"optimum\". The optimum level or\n\nrange is the index level which correlates to maximum yield (Dahnke,1993). In soil testing calibration, this test level which statistically corresponds to maximum yield is called the \"critical\" soil test level (Cate & Nelson,1971).\n\nPhosphorus (P) test results are reported on a pounds per acre basis only. The optimum phosphorus level varies from crop to crop and is listed in the \"optimum range\" section directly underneath the level found. The P bar graph is calibrated to display any value within this range as \"optimum\"."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 0f7d48b4-f52a-4c6d-a4cd-556dccff4b9b
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Phosphorus (P) test results are reported on a pounds per acre basis only. The optimum phosphorus level varies from crop to crop and is listed in the \"optimum range\" section directly underneath the level found. The P bar graph is calibrated to display any value within this range as \"optimum\".\n\nThe plant available forms of potassium (K), magnesium (Mg), and calcium (Ca) are held in the soil as positively charged ions called cations. The optimum level of these three nutrients depends on the soil's ability to hold cations. This is called cation exchange capacity (CEC). The interpretation of K, Mg, and Ca levels is not done using pounds per acre values, but only after further calculations involving CEC. This calculation procedure is explained below.\n\nSoil CEC\n\nThe cation exchange capacity (CEC) is an estimate of the total quantity of (+) charged nutrient ions (cations) a soil contains or can hold against leaching. CEC is essentially the total (-) charge in the soil which can attract and hold the (+) charge cations. Values of CEC are expressed in electrostatic charge units called milliequivalents per 100 grams of soil (me/100gm). In strongly acid soils the CEC is occupied primarily with exchangeable acidity (mostly aluminum). In slightly acid and neutral soils the CEC holds basic cations like Ca, K, and Mg, and relatively little acidity. Soils vary in CEC because of differences in texture, mineralogy, pH, and organic matter content.\n\nFor the purposes of our reporting system, the soil CEC is calculated by adding up the milliequivalents (me/100gm) of acidity, Ca, Mg, and K, since the CEC in most soils is occupied with just these four components. Acidity saturation is the portion of the potential CEC holding acid-forming ions (primarily aluminum) which must be neutralized with a lime application. Base saturation is the remaining portion of the CEC holding the nutrient cations Ca, Mg, and K.\n\nThe following equations are used to estimate soil CEC:"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: aa0eda06-a328-44bc-a667-adc8c2fe254f
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "The following equations are used to estimate soil CEC:\n\nCEC = acidity + Ca + Mg + K (all in me/100gm soil)\n\nme of acidity/100gm = me acidity at target pH\n\nme of Ca/100gm = lb Ca per acre/401\n\nme of Mg/100gm = lb Mg per acre/243\n\nme of K /100gm = lb K per acre/782\n\nUsing the data from the example Report form in appendix EX, the following CEC calculations can be done:\n\nacidity(neutralized to reach pH 6.5) = 51.8-(2.77 x 6.2)-(5.38 x 5.97)= 2.51 me/100gm\n\nCa = 2555/401 = 6.37 me/100gm\n\nMg = 229/243 = 0.94 me/100gm\n\nK = 253/782 = 0.32 me/100gm\n\nSoil CEC = acidity + Ca + Mg + K\n\n= 2.51 + 6.37 + 0.94 + 0.32\n\n= 10.14 me/100gm\n\nHand calculations may give slightly different results from the computer, due to differences in rounding.\n\nThe difference between CEC calculated at current soil pH and CEC calculated at a target pH depends on how far the current pH is below the target and how much reserve acidity must be neutralized to reach the target pH. This illustrates the difference between effective CEC (calculated at the current pH of the soil) and potential CEC (calculated at a target pH) (Thomas,1982; Ross,1995). The type of CEC (effective or potential) appearing on the Report form can be determined by whether the pH management statement in the Laboratory Results section specifies current pH or a target pH. In most cases, the CEC appearing on the Report form will be a potential CEC at a target pH.\n\npH Effect on CEC\n\nThe difference between potential and effective CEC is termed \"pH-dependent cation exchange capacity\" and is determined by the relative amount of neutralizable acidity present at any given soil pH. In highly acidic soils, most of the potential CEC will be pH dependent. This will be reflected in a high percentage of acidity."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 21a8c09c-ee95-4212-b573-3e7a06d55e0d
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "pH Effect on CEC\n\nThe difference between potential and effective CEC is termed \"pH-dependent cation exchange capacity\" and is determined by the relative amount of neutralizable acidity present at any given soil pH. In highly acidic soils, most of the potential CEC will be pH dependent. This will be reflected in a high percentage of acidity.\n\nResearch has shown that the CEC of the average Maine agricultural soil varies by 5.3 me/100gm for each 1.0 pH unit change (Bourgoin,1981). This means that the effective CEC (active at the current soil pH) increases as pH rises and decreases as pH falls. A drop in pH means a loss of effective CEC and that some cationic nutrients will lose their retention sites. These cations will leach away if no other mechanism of retention is available, such as plant uptake or precipitation in an insoluble form.\n\nThis same research has also shown that the effective CEC of Maine soils is essentially 100% saturated with the basic cations above a pH of 5.6 and remains 100% base saturated as pH rises. So as pH rises above 5.6, total base saturation remains near 100 %\n\nand acidity (as a percent of effective CEC) remains near 0, even as the CEC continues to increase. This increase in effective CEC comes from the neutralization of reserve acidity and the activation of exchange sites formerly occupied by it.\n\nOther Properties Affecting CEC"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 46f7d10b-0ab6-48a6-935b-3fa557f19429
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "and acidity (as a percent of effective CEC) remains near 0, even as the CEC continues to increase. This increase in effective CEC comes from the neutralization of reserve acidity and the activation of exchange sites formerly occupied by it.\n\nOther Properties Affecting CEC\n\nEffective and potential CEC are also determined by soil organic matter and clay content. Since (-) charged exchange sites in soils exist almost exclusively on clay and organic matter particles, the relative levels of each of these components is very important in determining the soil CEC. Soils high in clay content have a naturally high CEC. The types of clays present in the soil can also affect the magnitude of soil CEC, as well as the soil's relative ability to hold and release specific nutrient cations. Similarly, soils with a high organic matter content also have a relatively high CEC. Since clay content cannot be easily changed, the easiest way to enhance soil CEC is to increase organic matter content through additions of animal manure, compost, or crop residues (including green manure crops).\n\nPercent Saturation\n\nPercent saturation is a good means of evaluating nutrient balance because it shows the relative level at which various nutrients and reserve acidity occupy the soil CEC. Percent saturation is calculated by dividing milliequivalents of each cation by the calculated CEC and multiplying by 100. In the previous sample CEC calculation, the soil contains 2.51 me acidity/100gm, 6.37 me Ca/100gm, 0.94 me Mg/100gm, 0.32 me K/100gm and a CEC of 10.16 me/100gm. Percent saturations would be calculated as follows:\n\n% Acidity = 2.51 / 10.14 x 100 = 24.8 %\n\n% Ca = 6.37 / 10.14 x 100 = 62.8 %\n\n% Mg = 0.94 / 10.14 x 100 = 9.3 %\n\n% K = 0.32 / 10.14 x 100 = 3.2 %\n\nAfter saturation percentages are calculated, the remaining nutrient levels are interpreted."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 0490293e-4bd1-4f76-8ae8-79345cea2845
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "% Acidity = 2.51 / 10.14 x 100 = 24.8 %\n\n% Ca = 6.37 / 10.14 x 100 = 62.8 %\n\n% Mg = 0.94 / 10.14 x 100 = 9.3 %\n\n% K = 0.32 / 10.14 x 100 = 3.2 %\n\nAfter saturation percentages are calculated, the remaining nutrient levels are interpreted.\n\nIdeal cation saturation levels were first proposed by Bear & Toth (1948) and later modified to saturation ranges by Graham (1959) (Eckert,1987). Graham's original saturation ranges have been modified to some extent to compensate for Maine crops, soils, and growing conditions.\n\nThe ideal range of Ca saturation is 60-80% of the soil CEC. When Ca exceeds 80% of the soil CEC, it is rated excessive. The range of 1 to 50 X's in the Ca bar graph corresponds to 20 to 80 % Ca saturation.\n\nThe ideal range of Mg saturation is 10-25% of the CEC. Magnesium is recommended when the Mg saturation drops below 15%, or the ratio of % Mg to % K is less than 2:1. Magnesium is rated excessive when it exceeds 25% of the CEC.\n\nThe ideal range of K saturation varies by crop, but is typically 3-5%. Potassium is rated as excessive when it exceeds the optimum range for the crop. High levels of K can compete with Mg for uptake. The optimum percent saturation range for the crop specified is listed in the optimum range section directly below the level found and the bar graph is calibrated to display any value within this range as \"optimum\".\n\nCEC Adjustment\n\nWhen a soil sample is taken after a recent lime application or within a year after a heavy lime application, there will still be a certain amount of unreacted lime in the soil. In these situations, the amounts of Ca and Mg extracted from the soil will be partially from exchange sites and partially from dissolved lime. A CEC calculated using these cation levels will be erroneously high, since the Ca and Mg are not derived entirely from exchange sites."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 16b3f7cc-37d6-407f-9ddb-d2ad2a0ca988
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "CEC Adjustment\n\nWhen a soil sample is taken after a recent lime application or within a year after a heavy lime application, there will still be a certain amount of unreacted lime in the soil. In these situations, the amounts of Ca and Mg extracted from the soil will be partially from exchange sites and partially from dissolved lime. A CEC calculated using these cation levels will be erroneously high, since the Ca and Mg are not derived entirely from exchange sites.\n\nTo correct for this situation, an additional barium adsorption test is performed on all high pH soils which isolates and corrects these samples (Analytical lab, unpublished data). The correction is made by adjusting the milliequivalent levels of Ca and Mg downward on a proportional basis until the CEC equals that calculated from the additional test. In those cases where an adjustment has been made, this symbol will appear next to the CEC: (A). The pounds per acre levels reported on the Report form are not adjusted. Only the CEC and percent saturation calculations will be affected.\n\nHand calculation of CEC on adjusted samples will result in a higher CEC than what appears on the Report form. To calculate adjusted milliequivalent levels of Ca and Mg, simply calculate backward from the percent saturation levels:\n\nme/100gm Ca (adjusted) = CEC(adjusted) x % Ca saturation / 100\n\nme/100gm Mg (adjusted) = CEC(adjusted) x % Mg saturation / 100\n\nNutrient Balance\n\nThere is usually an inverse (and adverse) relationship between a very high concentration of one cation in the soil and the availability and uptake of other cations by the plant. Excessive Ca can induce Mg deficiency, especially when Mg is below 5% saturation. Excessive K also suppresses Mg uptake. Excessive Mg can limit Ca availability. Therefore, balance between the three nutrient cations is important."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 35f97a9e-5842-4e88-a34e-429af1cf2243
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "me/100gm Mg (adjusted) = CEC(adjusted) x % Mg saturation / 100\n\nNutrient Balance\n\nThere is usually an inverse (and adverse) relationship between a very high concentration of one cation in the soil and the availability and uptake of other cations by the plant. Excessive Ca can induce Mg deficiency, especially when Mg is below 5% saturation. Excessive K also suppresses Mg uptake. Excessive Mg can limit Ca availability. Therefore, balance between the three nutrient cations is important.\n\nIn figuring the proper balance it is assumed that the soil is 100% base saturated within the ideal pH range. If the three base cations are also within the respective optimum ranges listed, they are considered to be in proper balance with each other. Balance should result\n\nin optimum availability for plant uptake of all three nutrient cations. An imbalance would occur if one or more cations is present at an excessive level while another is present at a low level. Because of the inherent competition between cations, an excess of one in this case could cause or worsen a deficiency of the nutrient present at a low level. A deficiency caused by a gross imbalance is called an \"induced deficiency\".\n\nThe emphasis on nutrient balance in this interpretation/recommendation system should not be misunderstood as an attempt to adjust cations to some set of ideal ratios. Instead, the goal is to ensure a sufficient supply of each nutrient by adjusting its saturation level to fall within the optimum range listed and to avoid imbalances which may induce deficiencies (Eckert,1987). A few simple calculations can demonstrate that the actual ratio of one nutrient cation to another can cover a wide range of values, even with each being within its respective optimum range. For example, the optimum ranges for Ca (60 - 80 %) and Mg (10 - 25 %) result in Ca:Mg ratios ranging from 2.4:1 to 8:1."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 1d29ec49-3ef4-41f5-9e33-048f46e0328c
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Important limitation: Percent saturation is (with few exceptions) the primary means of interpreting the K, Mg, and Ca levels in this testing system. The Relative Soil Nutrient Level graphs are always calibrated based on percent saturation values for these nutrients. In some unusual cases where the soil has a very low CEC, the nutrients may be present within the optimum percent saturation ranges and be interpreted as optimum, but still not be present in sufficient quantity to support crop growth for the entire season (Bear & Toth,1948). This could occur in soils with a CEC of less than 5 me/100gm where a heavy K-demand crop such as potatoes or corn is being grown. In a situation such as this, it may be necessary to add nutrients more than once during the growing season, since the soil's supply of exchangeable K will be depleted rapidly.\n\nPhosphorus does not exist as a cation in soils and so is not included in cation balance calculations. If the soil P level is maintained within the ideal range listed for the crop and if the soil pH is also in the ideal range, an adequate P-supplying capacity should be assured.\n\nSoil Organic Matter"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 032c6c73-3549-4e88-8dc0-1216343fe1d1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Phosphorus does not exist as a cation in soils and so is not included in cation balance calculations. If the soil P level is maintained within the ideal range listed for the crop and if the soil pH is also in the ideal range, an adequate P-supplying capacity should be assured.\n\nSoil Organic Matter\n\nOrganic matter is decayed or humified organic material (crop residues, compost, manures, etc) in the soil. There are actually several techniques used to measure soil organic matter level. There is a simple ignition technique where the soil is heated to a very high temperature to burn off the organic matter (Ball,1964). The other major technique is to chemically digest or oxidize the organic carbon in the soil, using the method of Walkley & Black (1934), which is then used to estimate organic matter. Both are valid monitoring techniques, but give different numerical results. It is possible to establish a statistical relationship between these two methods, so that the ignition method can be used to estimate Walkley-Black organic matter and vice-versa. Most soil management books, reference manuals, and pesticide labels reference organic matter on the Walkley-Black scale.\n\nIn the past, the Maine Soil Testing Service has reported organic matter in terms of \"loss on ignition\". The faster and less hazardous ignition method is still used in the lab, but since 1995 the ignition value has been converted to Walkley-Black equivalence. Reporting organic matter on this basis makes test results compatible with current reference manuals and labels.\n\nUsing the Walkley-Black scale, the ideal soil organic matter level from the nutrient cycling and fertility standpoint is generally considered to be 5 - 8 %. If organic matter level falls below 2 - 3 %, the nutrient and water holding capacity of the soil becomes very limited and may not be sufficient to support normal plant growth during some growing seasons.\n\nAdditional Components\n\nAvailable Zinc"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 3ac74da0-5f66-45e0-b5ee-b50715d2cf4d
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Using the Walkley-Black scale, the ideal soil organic matter level from the nutrient cycling and fertility standpoint is generally considered to be 5 - 8 %. If organic matter level falls below 2 - 3 %, the nutrient and water holding capacity of the soil becomes very limited and may not be sufficient to support normal plant growth during some growing seasons.\n\nAdditional Components\n\nAvailable Zinc\n\nAvailable zinc is reported and interpreted only for field corn, sweet corn, and commercial potato crops. Zinc is a micronutrient which is rarely limiting to plant growth in Maine. It is reported for corn and potatoes, since a response to added zinc has been shown in some cases for these two crops only.\n\nThe optimum level for both crops is 1 ppm (parts per million) of available zinc. If the available zinc level is less than 1 ppm, there is a reasonable probability of a yield response to added zinc. If the available zinc level is greater than 1 ppm, there is very little chance of a yield increase from added zinc.\n\nIf the zinc level is above 2 ppm, zinc should not be used in a banded fertilizer, which would be concentrated in the root zone. As with most micronutrients, if too much is applied, the resulting soil level may actually be toxic to plants growing in it. The exact level where toxicity will occur depends on soil texture, pH, organic matter, and the plant species and variety. To be safe, it is best not to purposely apply zinc where a need is not indicated.\n\nWhen zinc is needed, a typical application rate is only 1 to 2 pounds actual zinc per acre if it is banded and 4 to 8 pounds per acre when broadcast. Specific application rates will be suggested when zinc is recommended.\n\nExchangeable Sodium"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: f1310dbe-62a2-465a-99d4-c9897df7dae3
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "When zinc is needed, a typical application rate is only 1 to 2 pounds actual zinc per acre if it is banded and 4 to 8 pounds per acre when broadcast. Specific application rates will be suggested when zinc is recommended.\n\nExchangeable Sodium\n\nIn cases where contamination from road salt or seawater is suspected, an exchangeable sodium test may be requested at no extra cost. Sodium (Na) is present in soils as an exchangeable cation and can compete with essential nutrient cations for exchange sites. It is easily extracted and measured with the nutrients.\n\nWhen Na is present at very high levels (above 15 % saturation of the CEC) soil aggregates may be dispersed (also called soil puddling), causing a loss of soil structure,\n\ndrainage, and aeration. More moderate levels of sodium can interfere with the availability of the nutrient cations. Excess sodium can also cause salt-effect desiccation damage to plant roots.\n\nSince water soluble salt content of soil will decrease as the season progresses and since sodium is retained by soil after a salt contamination event, exchangeable sodium content is often a more reliable long-term indicator of salt contamination than is a total soluble salt test.\n\nLead Scan\n\nAll home/grounds soil samples are scanned for possible lead contamination. Lead is a naturally occurring trace element present in all soils at a normal background level of less than 50 parts per million (ppm)(Pendias&Pendias). Lead \"enrichment\" or contamination of soils is a problem almost exclusively around older buildings or building sites. The usual source of this contamination is lead paint chips flaking, scraped, or sand blasted from these buildings over several decades. Lead paint was not banned until the 1970's."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 79fb76c2-6c53-4525-aa2d-6431e4d13297
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "The lead scan is NOT a complete test for the presence of lead contamination. It is an initial screening for the presence of lead at a level higher than the normal background level. The lead scan report will indicate either a normal background level, a moderate contamination level, or a heavy contamination level. The normal background level would not pose any health risk due to lead in the soil. A moderate to heavy contamination could, under the right circumstances, significantly add to the total daily intake of lead for those people working or playing in that area. Any vegetable garden or flower bed soil, in which there is an indication of moderate to heavy lead contamination, will automatically be tested for total lead content. Any lawn area with an indication of heavy contamination will also be tested for total lead content. A separate report with suggested guidelines and actions will be sent at a later date, usually within 2 to 4 weeks.\n\nLead is primarily a concern with growing children, who are much more sensitive to it than are adults. To be harmful, lead must be ingested by eating it or breathing the dust. Plants do not typically accumulate significant quantities of lead internally. Surface contamination of edible parts from dust, rain spatter or direct soil contact (as with root crops) is usually the most significant source of plant contamination. Additional information on lead contamination is available through your county Cooperative Extension office or through the Maine Soil Testing Service.\n\nINTERPRETATION OF RELATIVE SOIL FERTILITY LEVELS"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 350963ca-6064-4cd9-9ae5-560952faafb4
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "INTERPRETATION OF RELATIVE SOIL FERTILITY LEVELS\n\nThe test results for your soil are first presented as a series of bar graphs meant to help you visually interpret the actual numerical results which appear at the bottom of the report. Each graph is calibrated so that the optimum range listed for pH, organic matter, and each of the nutrients falls in the area under the \"OPTIMUM\" label. This rating system is based on the statistical probability of a positive crop yield response to the addition of a nutrient or to a higher soil pH or organic matter level (Olson, et.al., 1987; Beegle,1995).\n\nNotes on environmental interpretation: There is no intent with this system to make any interpretation as to the potential environmental impact of sensitive nutrients, such as phosphorus. This interpretation system is meant strictly for the determination of current soil suitability for agronomic or horticultural crop production. While nutrient availability can be important in gauging the potential for adverse environmental effects, it is only one factor in the overall picture. Slope, ground cover, incorporation of nutrient sources, timing of application, and other considerations all affect the potential movement of nutrients off-site and their potential for adverse environmental impact on surface and ground water (Lemunyon & Gilbert,1993; Beegle,1995).\n\nThe formal agronomic/horticultural definition of each interpretation level follows:\n\nLOW"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 797b308b-c3cc-4962-8a0f-2c77319e9cc6
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "The formal agronomic/horticultural definition of each interpretation level follows:\n\nLOW\n\nA nutrient or other component interpreted as \"low\" will likely limit plant growth and yield. There is a high probability of improved yield from an addition of and/or higher level of this component. A recommendation will be made to substantially increase the soil level. If the level is very low, several years of corrective fertilizing or liming may be necessary to achieve an optimum soil level. Close monitoring by yearly soil testing is suggested in this case. Banding of fertilizer near the row becomes critical at this test level to ensure efficient use and maximum nutrient availability within the rooting zone of the crop.\n\nMEDIUM\n\nA nutrient or pH level listed as \"medium\" has a moderate probability of an improved crop yield with a higher level. A medium nutrient level may limit plant growth or yield by the end of the growing season or in years of very good growing conditions, though it may be adequate for some low-demand crops in some cases. Corrective fertilizing or liming is usually recommended in moderate amounts to result in a slight increase in soil level after the crop has been removed or to support an exceptional yield in a very good year.\n\nOPTIMUM\n\nA soil component listed as \"optimum\" is in the theoretical ideal range to support growth and maximize yield. There is a low probability of an improved yield from a higher level of this component. Corrective fertilizing is not recommended. Any amendments\n\nrecommended for a component listed as \"optimum\" are to compensate for crop removal, so that this optimum level can be maintained from year to year. Even crop removal additions are not needed if the soil is tested yearly. A small amount of a starter fertilizer containing this nutrient may also be recommended.\n\nABOVE OPTIMUM"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 79f7a74a-0d10-49a1-b3ce-3f7b9150955e
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "recommended for a component listed as \"optimum\" are to compensate for crop removal, so that this optimum level can be maintained from year to year. Even crop removal additions are not needed if the soil is tested yearly. A small amount of a starter fertilizer containing this nutrient may also be recommended.\n\nABOVE OPTIMUM\n\nAn \"above optimum\" level of a soil component indicates a level higher than needed to support normal plant growth. The probability of an improved yield from a higher level is very low. In fact, growth and yield could be inhibited in some cases, either because of direct toxic effects to plants or because the overabundance of one nutrient may interfere with the uptake or availability of others. Additional application of something already at an above optimum level will only increase the likelihood of reduced yield. There will be no recommendation for further additions of this component under ordinary circumstances. Crop removal and other natural losses over time should eventually reduce the nutrient, pH, or organic matter level to optimum after a few years.\n\nOn sites receiving regulated materials, it is allowable to \"load\" the soil with strictly limited amounts of lime, P, and K to raise soil levels over and above that needed for maximum yield. In these cases, soil levels are not to exceed safe loading limits established by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection. In some of these cases, the current test level of P, K, or pH may be interpreted as above optimum from the standpoint of crop production, but still qualify for further application, provided they do not exceed safe loading limits.\n\nRECOMMENDATIONS\n\nFactors Influencing Recommendations"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 2c007d0c-c81e-4e9c-9888-d1ca5b522bc5
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "RECOMMENDATIONS\n\nFactors Influencing Recommendations\n\nSoil Buildup: The quantities of additional Ca, Mg, P and K required to supplement the present soil content in order to achieve theoretical optimum nutrient levels. Soil buildup is also called corrective fertilization or fertilizing the soil (Olson et.al., 1987). For most crops, the Maine recommendation system typically emphasizes the soil's ability to store and release phosphorus and potassium over more than one growing season. In this way, the soil is treated as a nutrient repository. Soil buildup can be a gradual or all-at-once practice. Practicality must be considered in corrective fertilization. Where insufficiency is small, crop removal plus corrective additions can be done at one time. When large insufficiencies exist, a gradual approach (several years) is more practical. Therefore, there is a maximum application limit for any one year.\n\nCrop Removal: A certain uptake quantity of each nutrient into the plant is critical in maximizing yield. Normal harvest removal of nutrients must be replaced in order to maintain an optimum fertility status in the soil. Once an optimum soil level is attained, only crop removal quantities need be applied to maintain this level. Crop removal quantity is also called maintenance level application."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: d8af773d-fe3c-4db6-9624-c8058e448c5a
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Crop Removal: A certain uptake quantity of each nutrient into the plant is critical in maximizing yield. Normal harvest removal of nutrients must be replaced in order to maintain an optimum fertility status in the soil. Once an optimum soil level is attained, only crop removal quantities need be applied to maintain this level. Crop removal quantity is also called maintenance level application.\n\nSufficiency Level: In a sufficiency level system, a nutrient is applied only if the test level is below the critical or no-response level (the absolute minimum necessary to support maximum yield). There is no overt attempt to maintain optimum level from year to year by factoring in crop removal (Olson et.al.,1987; Eckert,1987). The emphasis is to maintain a sufficient level of each nutrient to support yield and no more. Sufficiency level is also called fertilizing the crop. This is the concept used for home gardens, organic crops, and ornamental crops in the Maine system. For smaller-scale mixed cropping systems such as these, the sufficiency levels are high enough (to cover the requirements of heavy feeders) and soil test monitoring frequent enough that crop removal need not be factored in.\n\nMinimum Recommendations: Practicality in being able to apply small amounts of fertilizer or lime evenly with available equipment is used in determining minimum recommendation. This limit is invoked when a nutrient tests near optimum and only crop removal quantity or starter recommendations are made."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 5f94d56e-5dee-4b20-910a-de1fe0002b1c
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Minimum Recommendations: Practicality in being able to apply small amounts of fertilizer or lime evenly with available equipment is used in determining minimum recommendation. This limit is invoked when a nutrient tests near optimum and only crop removal quantity or starter recommendations are made.\n\nMaximum Recommendations: Nutrient inputs typically have an associated cost which must be taken into account when making recommendations. At very low test levels, the total amount of a nutrient needed to cover crop removal plus soil buildup to the optimum level may exceed the income from several years of any attainable yield. Because of this, a maximum limit is placed on all phosphate and potash recommendations, depending on the relative value of the crop. Limiting maximum recommended application also lessens the possibility of temporary nutrient imbalance and fertilizer salt burn, especially with potash.\n\nExcessive Levels: When a soil contains an available nutrient at an excessive level, there is the potential for uptake competition with other essential nutrients. For certain nutrients, there may be a direct toxicity effect from excess availability. The normal breakdown of excess organic matter can result in an overabundant supply of available nitrogen during the growing season, resulting in excess foliar and height growth and delayed blossoming or ripening of fruiting crops. In these cases a zero recommendation is usually applied to the nutrient or other component in excess. In time, cropping and normal loss to leaching should reduce the level to the optimum range."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: bd4f7a41-721d-4ca2-9364-b743fd58dce9
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Starter Fertilizer: In Maine's cold climate, rapid root development early in the season is important. To encourage this, a small amount of starter fertilizer may be recommended for some crops even though the available level in the soil may be rated optimum or even excessive. This applies primarily to phosphate (P205) recommendations, since an adequate available P level is critical in promoting early root growth. Starter fertilizer nutrient quantity is typically less than normal crop removal.\n\nCalculating the Lime Requirement\n\nThe lime requirement to reach a target pH is calculated simply by multiplying the milliequivalents of exchangeable acidity to reach the target by 1000 and rounding to the nearest 500 pounds per acre:\n\nLR (target pH) = exchangeable acidity (me/100gm) x 1000\n\nIf the soil pH is already within 0.1-0.2 units of the target pH, no lime is recommended since a negligible amount would be needed. Also, no lime is recommended if the Ca saturation is already above 80 %, since a nutrient imbalance would result from forcing the Ca level further into the excessive range.\n\nThe exchangeable acidity neutralized to reach the target pH of interest is calculated using the appropriate equation from p.8. These equations, as stated on that page, predict the quantity of acidity which must be neutralized in order to achieve the desired pH level. The multiplier of 1000 (above) converts the milliequivalents of acidity per 100 gm of soil to the pounds per acre of calcium carbonate necessary to neutralize it.\n\nFrom the sample Report, the exchangeable acidity to be neutralized to reach a pH of 6.5 is 2.51 me/100gm. The lime requirement is calculated as follows:\n\n2.51 x 1000 = 2510 lb/A (2500 lb/A rounded)\n\nTo calculate lime requirement on a 1000 sq. ft. basis, divide the pounds per acre rounded value by 43.56 and round to the nearest 10 lb/1000 sq. ft. The above lime requirement on a 1000 sq. ft. basis would be:\n\n2500 / 43.56 = 57 lb/1000 sq. ft. (60 lb rounded)"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 074376b7-7f75-4e71-b475-9911ca038b6e
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "From the sample Report, the exchangeable acidity to be neutralized to reach a pH of 6.5 is 2.51 me/100gm. The lime requirement is calculated as follows:\n\n2.51 x 1000 = 2510 lb/A (2500 lb/A rounded)\n\nTo calculate lime requirement on a 1000 sq. ft. basis, divide the pounds per acre rounded value by 43.56 and round to the nearest 10 lb/1000 sq. ft. The above lime requirement on a 1000 sq. ft. basis would be:\n\n2500 / 43.56 = 57 lb/1000 sq. ft. (60 lb rounded)\n\nTo calculate lime requirement on a 100 sq. ft. basis, divide the pounds per acre rounded value by 435.6 and round to the nearest whole pound per 100 sq. ft. The above lime requirement would be 6 lb/100 sq. ft.\n\nAll lime requirement equations calculate pounds per acre of pure calcium carbonate (or 100% calcium carbonate equivalent liming material) needed to reach the specified target pH after complete reaction. See \"Selecting Liming Material\" below for other liming considerations.\n\nEven though there is an equation to predict exchangeable acidity at the current pH of the soil, this should not be used to calculate a lime requirement. Obviously, no lime is necessary to reach the current pH. This equation is used only to calculate the readily exchangeable acidity portion of the effective CEC (CEC at the current soil pH).\n\nReasons for Liming Soils (from Brady,1974)\n\n1. To achieve a pH most favorable to plants in terms of their tolerance to soil acidity.\n\n2. To reduce the availability and chemical activity in the soil of elements toxic to plants (primarily aluminum, occasionally manganese).\n\n3. To maximize and maintain availability of nutrients, either applied or already available from the soil.\n\n4. To achieve a favorable balance between Ca, Mg, and other cations.\n\n5. To favor growth of beneficial microorganisms.\n\nSelecting Liming Materials"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 8c5fbcca-45b6-4ce3-bf41-9897ff43cd3c
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "1. To achieve a pH most favorable to plants in terms of their tolerance to soil acidity.\n\n2. To reduce the availability and chemical activity in the soil of elements toxic to plants (primarily aluminum, occasionally manganese).\n\n3. To maximize and maintain availability of nutrients, either applied or already available from the soil.\n\n4. To achieve a favorable balance between Ca, Mg, and other cations.\n\n5. To favor growth of beneficial microorganisms.\n\nSelecting Liming Materials\n\nLime is defined as any alkaline material which is applied to soil for the purpose of neutralizing acidity. It does not refer exclusively to ground limestone. A wide variety of materials can be recommended for use as lime. These can be either natural materials or waste products from home or industry. Two important factors to consider are: (1) The purity, and (2) The particle size.\n\nThe calculated lime requirement on the Report form assumes a lime with a neutralizing value of 100% pure calcium carbonate, to be incorporated into the soil to a depth of 6 2/3 inches (2 million pounds of soil per acre plow layer). Rates need to be adjusted when the calcium carbonate equivalence (CCE) of the selected material differs greatly (at least 10%) from the 100% value. Waste materials and marl are generally of lower neutralizing value than hard rock lime, so recommended application rate will need to be adjusted. Also, the recommendation should be reduced 15% for each inch shallower than six inches and increased 15% for each inch deeper than seven inches incorporation.\n\nLime Sources\n\nFollowing are some important characteristics of various lime sources:"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 00fc8872-4376-4dab-9786-e57bc86a547f
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Lime Sources\n\nFollowing are some important characteristics of various lime sources:\n\nHard Rock Carbonates: The salts of weak acids and strong bases are the best materials for lime because of their high neutralizing value and relatively low cost. Calcitic lime (CaC03) and Magnesium or Dolomitic lime (CaC03.MgC03) are the principal minerals available and usually the least costly. They occur naturally at high purity in limestone areas, and require only crushing to fine size before use. Fineness of grind is important in speed of reaction. Magnesium lime is preferred when both pH and Mg adjustments are needed. Several different grades of magnesium lime are commercially available, ranging from a minimum of 6 % Mg (required by law to be called a magnesium lime), to purer forms of true Dolomite at 12-14 % Mg content. Calcitic lime is most appropriate where the soil Mg level is already sufficient (usually from previous magnesium lime applications).\n\nCalcium Oxide, Calcium Hydroxide and Magnesium Oxide: These are manufactured limes from the burning of calcite, dolomite and magnesite. For example: calcite (CaCO3) when burned liberates CO2 and forms calcium oxide (CaO), which is called burned lime or quick lime. When water is added to calcium oxide the reaction yields calcium hydroxide, Ca(OH)2, which is called slaked or hydrated lime. When exposed to atmospheric CO2, it gradually converts back to calcium carbonate. Since both calcium oxide and calcium hydroxide are quite caustic and manufacturing adds to the cost, they are not normally used for agricultural lime. Magnesium oxide (Mag-Ox) may be used as a high quality, though expensive, source of magnesium for low magnesium, acid soils.\n\nMarl: This is calcitic lime that has been biologically precipitated by algae, shellfish, etc. Because it contains silt, clay, and water the purity is usually lower than hard rock limes. It will react rapidly, but requires pulverizing to get uniform spreading quality."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 79d0a09c-ab57-4202-ab53-62aa941dbbb0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Marl: This is calcitic lime that has been biologically precipitated by algae, shellfish, etc. Because it contains silt, clay, and water the purity is usually lower than hard rock limes. It will react rapidly, but requires pulverizing to get uniform spreading quality.\n\nWood Ash or Bioash: This lime source covers a variety of materials, from home woodstove ash to ash from wood-burning electrical or steam plants. Many people visualize wood ash as a source of potash only. It is, however, a potentially potent source of lime, as well as a source of Ca, Mg and even P. The calcium carbonate equivalence (CCE) of wood ash is highly variable, depending on the fuel used and the efficiency of combustion. If significant tonnage is to be used, the CCE as well as nutrient content should be tested. If the CCE of the ash is not known, the potential exists to over or under- lime the soil, resulting in a soil pH well outside the intended range.\n\nWaste lime: Pulp and paper companies use calcium oxide and calcium hydroxide limes to recausticize and recycle digestion liquor. Calcium hydroxide is also used in controlled atmosphere storage of fruit, particularly apples. When the lime is spent, it is discarded as waste and can usually be obtained at considerable cost savings over conventional lime. These materials are generally mixtures of calcium oxide, calcium hydroxide, and calcium carbonate and may occasionally contain some calcium silicate and calcium sulfate. Their\n\nCCE is usually quite high, however water content and physical condition can be a problem in handling and spreading."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 9fbfa0c0-1d73-4f6a-b2da-5196e0970718
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "CCE is usually quite high, however water content and physical condition can be a problem in handling and spreading.\n\nMollusk Shells: The Maine seafood industry generates a sizeable tonnage of clam and mussel shells each year. The shells are quite pure, with a calcium carbonate equivalence of 95 to 100 %. When crushed to sand size, shells make an excellent lime. Since shells are soft compared to steel, they can be easily ground with farm equipment like farm feed hammer mills. The spreading quality of crushed shells should be good. Mollusk shells are almost entirely CaCO3, with very little MgCO3, and so is most appropriate where calcitic lime is needed.\n\nOther Waste Materials: Other waste materials, because of treatment or content, may also be significant sources of lime equivalence if used in quantity and/or over a number of years.\n\nWaste water treatment plant sludge or biosolids are required to be lime stabilized before being applied to agricultural land. Hydrated lime is typically used to raise the pH of the sludge over 12 for the purpose of reducing or eliminating pathogenic organisms. Because of the high pH and residual lime content of biosolids, after only a few years' application they will significantly raise the pH and Ca content of soils to which they are applied. If a magnesium hydrated lime is used in the stabilization process, soil Mg level will also be raised. Most biosolids applications sites eventually become ineligible for further applications due to soil pH and/or Ca content limits.\n\nPoultry manure is another significant source of lime equivalence. This is especially true with manure from layer operations, since ground limestone and mollusk shells are included in the diet to enhance eggshell thickness. The lime and mollusk shells are both calcitic, so poultry manure typically has a low Mg content. It is not unusual to see very high or excessive soil pH and calcium levels in areas of regular poultry manure application.\n\nParticle Size Effect"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 35e99763-4824-48c1-b0bd-c493b5ce52c0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Poultry manure is another significant source of lime equivalence. This is especially true with manure from layer operations, since ground limestone and mollusk shells are included in the diet to enhance eggshell thickness. The lime and mollusk shells are both calcitic, so poultry manure typically has a low Mg content. It is not unusual to see very high or excessive soil pH and calcium levels in areas of regular poultry manure application.\n\nParticle Size Effect\n\nParticle size affects time of reaction and ability to get uniform spread and incorporation. Since most liming materials are relatively insoluble, reactive surface area becomes extremely important to the speed of reaction; that is, the greater the surface area the quicker the material reacts in the soil. Hard rock limestone lacks reactive surface area and must be ground to a fine size to increase reactivity. In general, a decrease in particle size by a factor of 10 increases reactivity by a factor of 10. Hard rock lime should meet state of Maine laws on purity and particle size (100% finer than 10 mesh; 98% finer than 20 mesh; 40% finer than 100 mesh). Because ground limestone has a range of particle sizes, the coarser material may take two or more years to complete reaction. Marl, woodash, and lime wastes are usually quite fine in particle size and react quickly, but may be lumpy and require pulverizing to achieve spreading ability.\n\nSoil pH Effect\n\nThe reaction rate of lime is affected by the existing pH of the soil. A given lime application will react much more quickly and completely in strongly acid soils than in slightly acid to neutral soils. Even though the amount of neutralizable acidity decreases rapidly as soil pH increases, each extra unit increase in soil pH requires greater quantities of lime to achieve that increase. This is partly due to the fact that lime reaction rate falls off quickly at higher soil pH, especially above pH 6.0."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 3e38ec2f-d820-451c-b3dc-f427ed48ca90
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "To achieve a target pH in a reasonable amount of time (one to two years for example), requires more total milliequivalents of alkaline material (as hard rock lime) be applied than milliequivalents of acidity to be neutralized. In effect, this could be viewed as \"over- liming\" to compensate for reduced lime reaction efficiency at higher soil pH's. A side- effect of this phenomenon is that once a high target pH (6.5 or 7.0 for example) has been achieved, there will still be a substantial amount of unreacted lime remaining in the soil. This unreacted lime will remain in equilibrium with the soil and can maintain soil pH at or near the target level for a number of years in some cases.\n\nDegree of Incorporation\n\nLime is not very mobile in soils, therefore neutralization of acidity depends on direct contact between the lime and soil. If the soil pH is to be increased throughout the plow layer or root zone, it is essential that lime be thoroughly mixed with the soil to the desired depth. In well drained acid soils, the deeper the lime is incorporated, the deeper the effective root zone becomes. Yields are expected to increase, not only because of improved soil pH, Ca and Mg content, but also because plants can utilize the available water and nutrients to greater soil depths. For liming rates of 3 tons per acre or more, a good method of incorporation is to apply one-half the lime recommended and plow the limed soil down, then apply the other half and disk it in. This procedure assures that the lime is distributed throughout the entire plow layer.\n\nTime of Lime Application"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: dc3b73c3-1cb2-4653-b198-055fd5e7b2c3
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Time of Lime Application\n\nThe crop response to lime is so great on strongly acid soils that any time of application can be justified and recommended. The best rule of thumb is to apply at a time of convenience when the soil is firm enough to support the spreading equipment. During the average year, Maine soils tend to be firmer in late summer and fall. This fact, as well as the fact that some reaction can take place before the next crop is seeded, favors fall application, even though lime reaction is slower over the winter than during the summer.\n\nWhen semi-permanent and permanent crops are to be established, such as conservation plantings, hay, turf, asparagus, small fruit, or tree crops, it is critical that lime be applied and incorporated prior to planting while the soil can still be tilled and the lime thoroughly incorporated.\n\nCalcium Requirement\n\nFor the purposes of this testing system, there is usually no explicit calculation of a Ca requirement. It is assumed that lime applied at the recommended rate will automatically adjust the soil Ca level to the optimum range of 60-80 % of the projected CEC, though it is not uncommon for Ca saturation to exceed 80 % for a year or two after a heavy lime application. As mentioned in the lime requirement section, if the soil Ca level is presently at 80 % or more of the projected CEC, there is no lime recommended, even if the soil pH is substantially below the target pH.\n\nFor commercial apple crops and commercial highbush blueberry crops, a Ca recommendation is occasionally calculated in the form of gypsum. Gypsum is a neutral salt consisting of calcium sulfate and has no neutralizing value; therefore it is not a lime as many believe. It is, however, an excellent source of both Ca and sulfur (S). Its principal use is where soil Ca level needs to be increased without changing the soil pH. It is also used to counteract the effects of excess sodium from road salt or seawater contamination."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 38baa54b-0097-406e-bcd2-4451f680ba39
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "See the Commercial Fruit section for more details on gypsum requirement calculations.\n\nMagnesium Requirement\n\nMethod 1 (for most soils)\n\nMg requirement = (15 - % Mg saturation) x CEC x 2.4 = pounds per acre\n\nMethod 2 (used when K saturation level is between 7.5 - 10%)\n\nMg requirement = (2 x % K saturation - % Mg saturation) x CEC x 2.4 = pounds per acre\n\nMethod 3 (used when K saturation exceeds 10 %)\n\nMg requirement = (20 - % Mg saturation) x CEC x 2.4 = pounds per acre\n\nExample (Method 1): If the soil CEC is 12 me/100 gm and Mg saturation is 10% and K saturation < 7.5 %, then\n\nMg requirement = (15 -10) x 12 x 2.4 = 144 pounds per acre\n\nExample (Method 2): If the soil CEC is 12 me/100 gm, the Mg saturation is 10% and the K saturation is 10%, then\n\nMg requirement = (20-10) x 12 x 2.4 = 288 pounds per acre\n\nIn practice, if Mg is needed, an actual recommendation is made only if lime is also needed. A magnesium or dolomitic lime is by far the least expensive and most available source of Mg in Maine.\n\nIf Mg is needed and lime is not needed, most other sources of Mg either raise pH as lime does or are prohibitively expensive for use on commercial acreage. Other, more expensive sources of Mg may be economically feasible for small-scale applications such as lawns or gardens. For instance, blended fertilizers with trace levels of Mg may be available from some suppliers. An alternative source, if K is also needed, is Sul-Po-Mag (sold as 0-0-22-11). Because of expense, Sul-Po-Mag is an economically feasible source of Mg only for gardens or high-value commercial crops. Sources of Mg, other than lime, are intended to serve a stop-gap role until such time as lime is needed again and a magnesium lime can be applied."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: d73c16b2-132c-4f4b-acca-e1e00f2f5385
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Actual cases of Mg deficiency are quite rare in Maine. The current consensus is that if Mg is low and lime cannot be applied, correcting the soil Mg level can wait until such time as lime is needed again. If soil Ca or K are excessive and soil Mg is very low (< 5 % saturation) or if deficiency symptoms are appearing on crops in the sampling area, other more expensive options including foliar sprays should be investigated.\n\nMagnesium Sources\n\nDolomitic limestone, Magnesium limestone: variable Mg (up to 14%). Use when lime and Mg are both needed. Supplies 20 lb Mg/ton for each percent Mg or 12 lb Mg/ton for each percent Mg0.\n\nSul-Po-Mag, K-Mag, Langbeinite, Sulfate of Potash-Magnesia (all same natural mineral): 10-12% Mg, 18% K (22% K2O), 23% S. Use at any soil pH. Use when both Mg and K are needed.\n\nEpsom salts (MgS04.7H20): 10-12% Mg. Use at any soil pH. Also can be dissolved in water and used as a foliar spray.\n\nMag-ox (MgO, burned magnesite): 53-55% Mg. Use when soil pH is below optimum.\n\nBurned Dolomite (CaO.MgO): 20-28% Mg. Use on acid soils.\n\nHigh-magnesium hydrated lime (Ca(OH)2.Mg(OH)2): up to 19% Mg. Use on acid soils. Do not use on living plants, to avoid caustic burn.\n\nPotash (K20) Requirement\n\nThe interpretation of soil potassium level and the calculation of potash requirement are based on the same general model used at Penn State (Penn State, 1997). The potash requirement is figured on the basis of crop removal, plus the difference between the current percent K saturation and the optimum percent K saturation for the crop:\n\nK20 requirement = crop removal + (optimum % K saturation - current % K saturation)\n\nx CEC x 9.36 = pounds per acre\n\nExample: if crop removal is 160 lb K2O/acre, the optimum % K saturation is 4%, the reported K saturation is 2%, and the soil CEC is 12 me/100 gm, then:\n\nK20 requirement = 160 + (4 - 2%) x 12 x 9.36 = 385 pounds per acre"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 1dd5ff3f-7cc2-49f3-8602-7bf7484874ca
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "K20 requirement = crop removal + (optimum % K saturation - current % K saturation)\n\nx CEC x 9.36 = pounds per acre\n\nExample: if crop removal is 160 lb K2O/acre, the optimum % K saturation is 4%, the reported K saturation is 2%, and the soil CEC is 12 me/100 gm, then:\n\nK20 requirement = 160 + (4 - 2%) x 12 x 9.36 = 385 pounds per acre\n\nThe calculated requirement is rounded to the nearest 10 pounds, in this case 390 pounds per acre. Practical minimum and maximum rates are also imposed because of economics, machinery limitations, or nutrient balance considerations. Crop removal and optimum % K saturation levels are different for each crop. See individual crop sections for more specifics on assumed crop removal and optimum levels.\n\nPhosphate (P2O5)Requirement\n\nThe following equation is used to determine the P205 requirement:\n\nP205 requirement = crop removal + (50 - no. PX's) x multiplier = pounds per acre\n\nThe number of PX's is taken from the phosphorus bar graph, which is derived from the pounds per acre P test level. Maine's interpretation of the phosphorus soil test is based on the interpretation used at Cornell University for agricultural and horticultural crops (Cornell University, 1994). Cornell uses a Morgan phosphorus test, as does Maine. The reason phosphate requirement equations are based on the number of X's rather than directly on the pounds per acre of available P is that the interpretation of phosphorus test results is not a constant function of pounds per acre. For a crop with an optimum range of 10 - 40 pounds per acre, for instance, the number of X's in the bar graph is determined using a separate function for each of the interpretation ranges as follows:\n\n0 to 5.0 lb P/A = 1 to 25 X's (low)\n\n5.1 to 10.0 lb P/A = 25 to 33 X's (medium)\n\n10.1 to 40.0 lb P/A = 33 to 50 X's (optimum)\n\n> 40.0 lb P/A = 55 X's (excessive)"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 5724a148-2e97-4925-9fe3-99c4da7bd1d9
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "0 to 5.0 lb P/A = 1 to 25 X's (low)\n\n5.1 to 10.0 lb P/A = 25 to 33 X's (medium)\n\n10.1 to 40.0 lb P/A = 33 to 50 X's (optimum)\n\n> 40.0 lb P/A = 55 X's (excessive)\n\nExample calculation: If the crop removal is 40 lb P2O5/acre, the efficiency/conversion multiplier is 2.5, and the number of X's in the P soil test interpretation graph is 15, then:\n\nP205 requirement = 40 + (50 - 15) x 2.5 = 127.5 pounds per acre (130 pounds per acre rounded)\n\nPhosphate requirements are also rounded to the nearest 10 pounds per acre. Minimum and maximum limits are also imposed, as with potash requirements. Crop removal values are different for each crop. The multiplier is derived from two factors: 1) The conversion from elemental phosphorus (P) to fertilizer phosphate (P2O5) - [roughly a factor of 2] and 2) The average efficiency or effectiveness of added phosphate for each crop. Efficiency is the percentage of fertilizer applied which is actually taken up or which remains plant available in the soil. Phosphate efficiency is a function of several factors including soil pH, soil organic matter level, whether the fertilizer is banded or broadcast, and how thoroughly the crop rooting system exploits the plow layer. See individual crop sections for assumed efficiency and crop removal factors.\n\nNitrogen Requirement\n\nSince there is no good spring or fall soil test to predict nitrogen availability over an entire growing season, this nutrient recommendation is actually the estimated total seasonal crop requirement. It is assumed that an average soil will supply a modest quantity of nitrogen during the growing season, some of which will be lost to leaching and denitrification. The estimated nitrogen requirement assumes an optimum yield under Maine conditions for the crop requested. The recommendation also compensates for loss of added chemical fertilizer nitrogen to leaching and denitrification over the growing season."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 82ab6a77-a6cd-4e5d-a345-88ef68b33df5
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Allowances are made in commercial potatoes when a green manure or legume has been turned under from the previous year in the rotation. Some nitrogen is recommended for legumes in the seeding year but not in succeeding years, since they fix their own nitrogen after they are established.\n\nIn the case of home gardens and organically grown crops, allowance is made for the organic matter level found. In gardens, it is quite common for manure, compost, or other nutrient-rich organic matter sources to be added every year or two. The normal breakdown and release of nutrients from organic matter is more likely to supply a significant amount of nitrogen in these situations. A soil with an organic matter level of 5 to 8 % should supply half or more of the seasonal nitrogen requirement of general garden crops. An application of about a quarter of the recommended nitrogen at planting time should be sufficient for the entire season in this case, unless rainfall is unusually heavy. This assumes the regular use of manure or compost. If peat moss, wood chips, or sawdust have been used, apply the quarter rate at planting time and the remainder of the full rate at early mid-season, regardless of the organic matter level.\n\nFor field corn, an extra mid-season soil test is available and highly recommended. In this test, available nitrate-nitrogen in the soil at mid-season is used to determine whether additional nitrogen sidedress is necessary and if so, how much (Magdoff, 1984). Currently, interpretation of this test is only available for field corn and sweet corn crops. (See example Report form).\n\nA mid-season nitrate test is also available for commercial potatoes. This test monitors nitrate level in leaf petiole, rather than in the soil. Research has shown leaf petiole nitrate in potato to be a better indicator of nitrogen fertility status than is the soil level at mid- season (Porter, 1991).\n\nContact your county Extension office for information on either mid-season nitrogen test."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 0ea1231a-9b7f-43ff-8a74-6ce76f9478dd
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "A mid-season nitrate test is also available for commercial potatoes. This test monitors nitrate level in leaf petiole, rather than in the soil. Research has shown leaf petiole nitrate in potato to be a better indicator of nitrogen fertility status than is the soil level at mid- season (Porter, 1991).\n\nContact your county Extension office for information on either mid-season nitrogen test.\n\nDETERMINING FERTILIZER BLEND AND APPLICATION RATE\n\nIt is important to note that even though soil test results for P and K are reported in terms of the pure element, the recommendations for additions of these two nutrients are in terms of phosphate (P2O5) and potash (K2O). The P and K content of all commercial fertilizer must be reported in these terms by law. By generating recommendations in these same terms, it is easier to compare the specific requirements of a field with the fertilizer blends available.\n\nAs was stated earlier, the calculated nutrient requirements can be met with any variety and/or combination of nutrient sources: organic or chemical, residual or commercial. If the N-P2O5-K2O content of the potential nutrient source(s) is known, the best choice of source and the proper application rate can be calculated. The following example will illustrate how to choose among available fertilizer blends and how to figure the application rate of the best choice. The recommendations and the available fertilizer grades are not necessarily average or typical for any crop or vendor:\n\nExample\n\nRecommended nutrient application rates as follows:\n\n150 pounds nitrogen per acre\n\n100 pounds phosphate per acre\n\n150 pounds potash per acre\n\n1) Determine the ratio of N-P2O5-K2O recommendations in the simplest form by dividing all three rates by the smallest. In this case dividing all three by 100 results in the ratio: 1.5-1-1.5\n\n2) Determine the ratio of the fertilizer grades available from your vendor by the same method as above:"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 4c92d5a5-acfe-4ef9-9d83-e6d77e388b49
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Example\n\nRecommended nutrient application rates as follows:\n\n150 pounds nitrogen per acre\n\n100 pounds phosphate per acre\n\n150 pounds potash per acre\n\n1) Determine the ratio of N-P2O5-K2O recommendations in the simplest form by dividing all three rates by the smallest. In this case dividing all three by 100 results in the ratio: 1.5-1-1.5\n\n2) Determine the ratio of the fertilizer grades available from your vendor by the same method as above:\n\nGrade 10-10-10 1 - 1 - 1 1 - 2 - 2 5-10-10 1.9 - 1 - 1.5 15-8-12\n\nRatio\n\n3) Find the closest match in ratio between the recommended application rates and the blended fertilizers available. In this case the closest match in ratio is the 15-8-12.\n\n4) Calculate the application rate based on the most critical nutrient requirement, usually nitrogen:\n\n150 lb nitrogen per acre / 0.15 (15% N in 15-8-12) = 1000 lb 15-8-12\n\nActual nutrient application from 1000 lb 15-8-12 per acre:\n\n150 pounds nitrogen per acre\n\n80 pounds phosphate per acre\n\n120 pounds potash per acre\n\nAs you can see, common pre-blended fertilizer grades often do not exactly match the specific nutrient requirements of a field for a given crop. However, a 10 to 20 pound per acre overapplication or underapplication in any one year will not be a critical problem in most cases. Ideally, a custom blended fertilizer should be obtained where possible to more precisely meet specific requirements. As illustrated in the next section, a similar process is used to calculate the application rate of a manure or residual material to best match the nutrient requirements given on the Report form.\n\nNUTRIENT CONTENT OF MANURES AND RESIDUAL MATERIALS"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 5cf6b2fb-0c1d-4344-99d1-b1b9e343abad
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "NUTRIENT CONTENT OF MANURES AND RESIDUAL MATERIALS\n\nAnimal manures and various residual materials such as bioash, municipal treatment plant sludge (biosolids), and processing wastes are all potentially rich sources of one or more of the nutrients or lime recommended on the Report/Recommendation form. The problem with these materials, as compared with commercially available fertilizers or nutrient sources, is that their content is not guaranteed. In fact, their contents are often quite variable from source to source or even over time from any one source. The key to the sensible use of any of these materials is to have the nutrient content and/or lime equivalence tested if an analysis has not already been done by the supplier.\n\nRegulated materials must be analyzed by the supplier before they can be used on agricultural land. For non-regulated materials, like animal manures, it is usually well worth the cost of analysis to determine the nutrient content. When the content or nutrient equivalence of a material is known, the application can be calibrated to best match the specific requirements of each field. In this way, over or under-application of nutrients and/or lime can be avoided and the most economic use can be made of the materials at hand.\n\nFollowing is a very general rating of manures and residual materials as to their nutrient and lime content:\n\nmaterial\n\nlime\n\nnitrogen phosphate potash\n\ncow manure\n\npoor-moderate good moderate good\n\npoultry manure\n\ngood\n\ngood\n\ngood\n\nmoderate\n\nboiler ash/bioash good\n\n(none) moderate good\n\nsludge/biosolids good*\n\ngood\n\ngood\n\npoor\n\nsludge and septage are required to be lime stabilized"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: a61e30fd-08ee-4e74-9741-cf9a6af9e111
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Following is a very general rating of manures and residual materials as to their nutrient and lime content:\n\nmaterial\n\nlime\n\nnitrogen phosphate potash\n\ncow manure\n\npoor-moderate good moderate good\n\npoultry manure\n\ngood\n\ngood\n\ngood\n\nmoderate\n\nboiler ash/bioash good\n\n(none) moderate good\n\nsludge/biosolids good*\n\ngood\n\ngood\n\npoor\n\nsludge and septage are required to be lime stabilized\n\nTo calculate the most efficient application rate of a manure or residual material for which the N-P2O5-K2O (and lime) equivalence is known, calculate the application rate necessary to meet each of the individual nutrient and lime recommendations on the Report form. If overapplication of any one nutrient is to be avoided, limit the application to the lowest application rate calculated. The following example uses a liquid manure analysis to illustrate. The recommendations and the manure analysis results are not necessarily average or typical for any crop or manure:\n\nExample\n\nRecommended nutrient application rates as follows:\n\n150 pounds nitrogen per acre\n\n100 pounds phosphate per acre\n\n150 pounds potash per acre\n\nAnalysis of a liquid manure indicates the following nutrient content (per 1000 gallons):\n\n12 lb total N\n\n6 lb NH4-N\n\n3 lb P2O5\n\n12 lb K2O\n\n1) If the manure is immediately incorporated, all the ammonia-N, 40 % of the remaining N, and most of the P2O5 and K2O will be available during the first year. The actual available nitrogen supplied by this manure would be calculated as follows:\n\navailable N = NH4-N + [(total N - NH4-N) x .40]\n\n6 + [(12 - 6) x 0.4] = 6 + 2.4 = 8.4 lb available N per 1000 gal.\n\nThe phosphate and potash values for the manure should be taken at face value.\n\n2) Now calculate the application rate needed to supply each of the recommended nutrient additions:\n\nTo meet the nitrogen recommendation:\n\n150 lb N per acre / 8.4 lb available N/1000 gal. = 17,900 gal./A\n\nTo meet the P2O5 recommendation:\n\n100 lb phosphate per acre / 3 lb P2O5/1000 gal. = 33,300 gal./A"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 00d193f9-2c80-4287-bb1c-af803f0688bd
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "available N = NH4-N + [(total N - NH4-N) x .40]\n\n6 + [(12 - 6) x 0.4] = 6 + 2.4 = 8.4 lb available N per 1000 gal.\n\nThe phosphate and potash values for the manure should be taken at face value.\n\n2) Now calculate the application rate needed to supply each of the recommended nutrient additions:\n\nTo meet the nitrogen recommendation:\n\n150 lb N per acre / 8.4 lb available N/1000 gal. = 17,900 gal./A\n\nTo meet the P2O5 recommendation:\n\n100 lb phosphate per acre / 3 lb P2O5/1000 gal. = 33,300 gal./A\n\nTo meet the K2O recommendation:\n\n150 lb potash per acre / 12 lb K2O/1000 gal. = 12,500 gal./A\n\nThe actual nutrients suppied from the lowest calculated rate of 12,500 gal./A would be:\n\n105 lb nitrogen per acre\n\n35 lb phosphate per acre\n\n150 lb potash per acre\n\nThis rate will avoid overapplication of any of the nutrients, while supplying the entire potash recommendation. The remaining deficit of nitrogen and phosphate would have to be supplied from some other source or sources, such as chemical fertilizer.\n\nThe manure application rate could be adjusted to supply all the recommended nitrogen or phosphate recommended, but with an over-application of potash. Since K is not an environmentally sensitive nutrient, a limited over-application could be justified. Repeated over-application of K or any other nutrient can lead to a buildup in soil level and could eventually result in nutrient balance problems.\n\nReferences\n\nBall, D.F. 1964. Loss-on-ignition as an estimate of organic matter and organic carbon in non-calcareous soils. Journal of Soil Science 15:84-92.\n\nBear, F.E. and S.J. Toth. 1948. Influence of calcium on availability of other soil cations. Soil Science 65:67-74.\n\nBeegle, D. 1995. Interpretation of Soil Testing Results, p. 84-91. IN Recommended Soil Testing Procedures for the Northeastern United States. University of Delaware Ag. Experiment Station Bulletin no. 493, second edition."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 90012e9f-26ec-448c-b0c0-7aa5c4f165bc
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "References\n\nBall, D.F. 1964. Loss-on-ignition as an estimate of organic matter and organic carbon in non-calcareous soils. Journal of Soil Science 15:84-92.\n\nBear, F.E. and S.J. Toth. 1948. Influence of calcium on availability of other soil cations. Soil Science 65:67-74.\n\nBeegle, D. 1995. Interpretation of Soil Testing Results, p. 84-91. IN Recommended Soil Testing Procedures for the Northeastern United States. University of Delaware Ag. Experiment Station Bulletin no. 493, second edition.\n\nBourgoin, T. 1980. Soil acidity and its affect on the fertility and lime requirement of selected Maine soils. Masters thesis. University of Maine.\n\nBrady, N.C. 1974. Lime and its Soil-Plant Relationships, p. 404-421. IN The Nature and Properties of Soils, 8th edition. MacMillan Publishing Co.\n\nBray, R.H. 1942. Rapid tests for measuring and differentiating between the adsorbed and acid-soluble forms of phosphate in soils. Illinois Ag. Experiment Station Agronomy Dept. Pamphlet AG 1028.\n\nBray, R.H., and L.T. Kurtz. 1945. Determination of total, organic, and available forms of phosphorus in soils. Soil Science 59:39-45.\n\nCornell University. 1994. Soil Testing, p. 10 - 12. IN 1994 Cornell Recommends for Integrated Field Crop Management. Cornell Cooperative Extension Publication.\n\nCate, R.B. and L.A. Nelson. 1971. A simple statistical procedure for partitioning soil test correlation data into two classes. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings 35:658- 659.\n\nDahnke, W.C. 1993. Soil test interpretation. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 24(1&2):11-27.\n\nEckert, D.J. 1987. Soil test interpretations: Basic cation saturation ratios and sufficiency levels, p. 53 - 64. IN Soil testing: Sampling, correlation, calibration, and interpretation. J.R. Brown editor, SSSA Special Publication No. 21. Soil Science Society of America.\n\nGraham, E.R. 1959. An explanation of theory and methods of soil testing. Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 734."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 6803aba7-f855-4bc2-b753-41ee773adc32
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Eckert, D.J. 1987. Soil test interpretations: Basic cation saturation ratios and sufficiency levels, p. 53 - 64. IN Soil testing: Sampling, correlation, calibration, and interpretation. J.R. Brown editor, SSSA Special Publication No. 21. Soil Science Society of America.\n\nGraham, E.R. 1959. An explanation of theory and methods of soil testing. Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 734.\n\nLemunyon, J.L. and R.G. Gilbert. 1993. The concept and need for a phosphorus assessment tool. Journal of Production Agriculture 6(4):483-486.\n\nLunt, H.A., C.L.W. Swanson , H.G.M. Jacobson. 1950. The Morgan soil tesing system. Connecticut Ag. Experiment Station Bulletin 541.\n\nMagdoff, F.R., D. Ross, and J. Amadon. 1984. A soil test for nitrogen availability to corn. Soil Science Society of America Journal 48:1301-1304.\n\nMehlich, A. 1953. Determination of P, Ca, Mg, K, Na, and NH4. North Carolina Soil Test Division mimeo.\n\nMehlich, A. 1976. New buffer pH method for rapid estimation of exchangeable acidity and lime requirements of soils. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 7: 253 - 263.\n\nMehlich, A. 1978. New extractant for soil test evaluation of phosphorus, potassium, magnesium, calcium, sodium, manganese, and zinc. Communication in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 9(6):477-492.\n\nMehlich, A. 1984. Mehlich 3 soil test extractant: A modification of the Mehlich 2 extractant. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 15(12):1409-1416.\n\nMorgan, M.F. 1941. Chemical soil diagnosis by the universal soil testing system. Connecticut Ag. Experiment Station Bulletin 450.\n\nOlsen, S.R., C.V. Cole, F.S. Watanabe, L.A. Dean. 1954. Estimation of available phosphorus in soils by extraction with sodium bicarbonate. USDA Circular No. 939.\n\nOlsen, S.R. and L.E. Sommers. 1982. Phosphorus, p. 416-422. IN Methods of Soil Analysis, Agronomy no. 9, part 2, second edition. American Society of Agronomy."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 223e53ac-4974-49e3-8f94-54491eeac130
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Morgan, M.F. 1941. Chemical soil diagnosis by the universal soil testing system. Connecticut Ag. Experiment Station Bulletin 450.\n\nOlsen, S.R., C.V. Cole, F.S. Watanabe, L.A. Dean. 1954. Estimation of available phosphorus in soils by extraction with sodium bicarbonate. USDA Circular No. 939.\n\nOlsen, S.R. and L.E. Sommers. 1982. Phosphorus, p. 416-422. IN Methods of Soil Analysis, Agronomy no. 9, part 2, second edition. American Society of Agronomy.\n\nOlson, R.A., et. al. 1987. Soil testing interpretations: Sufficiency vs. build-up and maintenance, p. 41-52. IN Soil testing: Sampling, correlation, calibration, and interpretation. J.R. Brown editor, SSSA Special Publication No. 21. Soil Science Society of America.\n\nPenn State University. 1997. Soil Fertility Management, p. 17 - 40. IN The Agronomy Guide, 1997 - 1998. Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences.\n\nPorter, G.A. and J.A. Sisson. 1991. Petiole nitrate content of Maine grown Russet Burbank and Shepody potatoes in response to varying nitrogen rate. American Potato Journal 68:493-505.\n\nRoss, D.S. 1995. Recommended methods for determining soil cation exchange capacity, p. 62-69. IN Recommended Soil Testing Procedures for the Northeastern United States. University of Delaware Ag. Experiment Station Bulletin no. 493, second edition.\n\nShoemaker, H.E., E.O. McLean, and P.F. Pratt. 1961. Buffer methods for determination of lime requirement of soils with appreciable amount of exchangeable aluminum. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings 25:274-277.\n\nThomas, G.W. 1982. Exchangeable cations, p. 159-165. IN Methods of Soil Analysis, Agronomy no. 9, part 2, second edition. American Society of Agronomy.\n\nTucker, M.R. 1996. Soil Test Methods used by NCDA Agronomic Division.\n\nUSDA NRCS. 1996. Soil Survey Laboratory Methods Manual. Soil Survey Investigations Report No. 42, Version 3.0."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 2824704e-1ec9-4c71-9ae3-521f3eeaf868
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Thomas, G.W. 1982. Exchangeable cations, p. 159-165. IN Methods of Soil Analysis, Agronomy no. 9, part 2, second edition. American Society of Agronomy.\n\nTucker, M.R. 1996. Soil Test Methods used by NCDA Agronomic Division.\n\nUSDA NRCS. 1996. Soil Survey Laboratory Methods Manual. Soil Survey Investigations Report No. 42, Version 3.0.\n\nWalkley, A. and I.A. Black. 1934. An examination of Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Science 37:29-37.\n\n08/18/2010 17 PRINT DATE\n\nLAB NO.\n\nROAD FIELD 1\n\nSAMPLE IDENTIFICATION\n\nPISCATAQUIS\n\nCOUNTY\n\nACRES OR SQ. FT.\n\n.SOIL TEST REPORT FOR:\n\nEXAMPLE AGRONOMIC CROP\n\nStandard Soil Test\n\nMAINE SOIL TESTING SERVICE UNIVERSITY OF MAINE 5722 DEERING HALL ORONO,MAINE 04469-5722\n\n. SOIL TEST SUMMARY & INTERPRETATION (see Numerical Results section for more information) Level Found 5.8 5.7\n\nLOW\n\nMEDIUM\n\nXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX\n\nSoil pH Organic Matter\n\n(%)\n\nOPTIMUM\n\nABOVE OPTIMUM\n\nPhosphorus Potassium Calcium Magnesium Sulfur Boron Copper Iron Manganese Zinc . RECOMMENDED ADDITIONS FOR\n\n11.8 1.5 39.2 6.4 18 0.3 1.03 11 4.0 1.8\n\nXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX\n\n(lb/A) (% Sat)\n\n(% Sat)\n\n(% Sat)\n\n(ppm) (ppm)\n\n(ppm) (ppm)\n\n(ppm)\n\n(ppm)\n\nCORN - Crop Code # 164"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 4422c1e6-9a9d-4536-bcf4-eb4aac315211
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "11.8 1.5 39.2 6.4 18 0.3 1.03 11 4.0 1.8\n\nXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX\n\n(lb/A) (% Sat)\n\n(% Sat)\n\n(% Sat)\n\n(ppm) (ppm)\n\n(ppm) (ppm)\n\n(ppm)\n\n(ppm)\n\nCORN - Crop Code # 164\n\nTo raise soil pH to 6.0, apply 1500 pounds of lime per acre. To raise soil pH to 6.5, apply 4500 pounds of lime per acre. Lime recommendation assumes a calcium carbonate equivalence (neutralizing value) of 100 %. To meet crop magnesium requirement, use a magnesium lime. Recommended major nutrient application rates as follows: Nitrogen: See management statements below. 100 pounds phosphate per acre 240 pounds potash per acre\n\nApply up to 40 lb/A each of nitrogen, phosphate, and potash through the planter. Remaining P & K should be broadcast preplant. *******Nitrogen Management******* *Best mgt: Sample soil for nitrate analysis when corn 8-12 inches tall. Exact recommendations for N sidedress will be made at that time. *Next best option: With no nitrate soiltest, sidedress 80 lb N/acre when corn is 8-12 inches tall. Note: for organic sources of nitrogen, calculate application rate to supply 150 pounds of available N for a 20 ton/acre yield goal.\n\nSoil zinc level is adequate. No extra yield expected from additional zinc.\n\nFor information on micronutrient management and recommendations, see enclosed form.\n\n.\n\n(Test methodology: pH in water and Mehlich buffer, available nutrients by modified Morgan extract) (Organic matter measured by LOI, P determined colorimetrically, all others measured by ICP-OES)\n\nNUMERICAL RESULTS\n\nCEC and nutrient balance calculations assume the pH will be raised to 6.5\n\nLevel Found\n\nOptimum Range\n\n5.84 Soil pH Lime Index 2 N/A 6.0-7.0\n\n5.8\n\n11.8\n\n91\n\n126\n\n1280\n\n8.1 CEC\n\n1.5 K"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 7d5e350e-880d-4a46-bcba-29b9c55f0946
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "For information on micronutrient management and recommendations, see enclosed form.\n\n.\n\n(Test methodology: pH in water and Mehlich buffer, available nutrients by modified Morgan extract) (Organic matter measured by LOI, P determined colorimetrically, all others measured by ICP-OES)\n\nNUMERICAL RESULTS\n\nCEC and nutrient balance calculations assume the pH will be raised to 6.5\n\nLevel Found\n\nOptimum Range\n\n5.84 Soil pH Lime Index 2 N/A 6.0-7.0\n\n5.8\n\n11.8\n\n91\n\n126\n\n1280\n\n8.1 CEC\n\n1.5 K\n\n6.4 Mg\n\n39.2 Ca\n\nPhosphorus Potassium Magnesium Calcium\n\n(lb/A) 10-40\n\n(lb/A) see % Saturation levels\n\n(lb/A)\n\n(lb/A) (me/100 g)\n\n(% Saturation) 60-80\n\n> 5 2.8-4.0 10-20\n\n52.9 Acidity\n\n< 10\n\nLevel Found\n\nNormal Range\n\n5.7 Organic Matter(%) (ppm)\n\n18 Sulfur\n\n5 - 8\n\n> 15\n\n1.03 10.5 4.0 Copper Manganese Iron (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) 0.8-1.2 6 - 10 4 - 8\n\n1.8 Zinc (ppm) 1 - 2\n\nAdditional Results or Comments:\n\nLevel Found (Extras) Normal Range\n\n0.3 Boron Boron (ppm) 0.5-1.2\n\nN/A Sodium (ppm)\n\nN/A Soluble Salts (mmhos/cm)\n\nN/A Nitrate-N (ppm)\n\nN/A Ammonium-N (ppm)\n\nFull payment received for this sample. Thank you.\n\nAGRONOMIC CROPS\n\nCrop Codes 101 to 106\n\nTopdress of Established Stands\n\nFor all crops:\n\nNutrient requirements rounded to nearest 10 pounds per acre.\n\nOptimum P range = 10 - 40 pounds P per acre\n\nOptimum K range = 2.8 - 4.0 % K saturation\n\nFor crop codes 101 and 102:\n\nCEC and nutrient balance calculations assume a target pH of 6.5 (current pH if higher), unless otherwise requested.\n\nLime is recommended to raise soil pH to both 6.0 and 6.5, unless otherwise requested.\n\nCrop Code 101, Alfalfa (over 50% stand). For 4-5 tons hay (12-15 tons haylage) per acre.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 0 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 requirement = 70 + (50 - no. PX's) = pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 40 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = 250 + (3 - % K sat.) * CEC * 9.36 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 320 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 120 pounds per acre"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 709abbda-12b8-41f7-af82-680d999769f6
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Lime is recommended to raise soil pH to both 6.0 and 6.5, unless otherwise requested.\n\nCrop Code 101, Alfalfa (over 50% stand). For 4-5 tons hay (12-15 tons haylage) per acre.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 0 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 requirement = 70 + (50 - no. PX's) = pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 40 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = 250 + (3 - % K sat.) * CEC * 9.36 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 320 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 120 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when K saturation exceeds 4% and K test exceeds 250 pounds per acre\n\nCrop Code 102, Clover (over 50% stand). For 3-4 tons hay (9-12 tons haylage) per acre.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 0 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 requirement = 50 + (50 - no. PX's) = pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 40 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = 140 + (3 - % K sat.) * CEC * 9.36 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 210 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 70 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when K saturation is above 4% and K test exceeds 250 pounds per acre\n\nFor crop codes 104, 105, and 106:\n\nCEC and nutrient balance calculations assume a target pH of 6.0 (current pH if higher), unless otherwise requested.\n\nLime is recommended to raise soil pH to 6.0, unless otherwise requested.\n\nCrop Code 104, Grass Hay (up to 50% legume)-one crop. For 1-2 tons hay (3-6 tons haylage) per acre.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 60 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 requirement = 25 + (50 - no. PX's) = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 40 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 40 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = 80 + (3 - % K sat.) * CEC * 9.36 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 120 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 40 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when K saturation exceeds 4% and K test exceeds 250 pounds per acre\n\nCrop Code 105, Grass Hay (up to 50% legume)-two crops. For 3-4 tons hay (9-12 tons haylage) per acre.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 120 pounds per acre\n\nCrop Code 106, Pasture.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 100 pounds per acre\n\nCrop Codes 105, 106:"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 1675f467-0b12-4771-8a74-a13a6de313c4
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Calc. K2O requirement = 80 + (3 - % K sat.) * CEC * 9.36 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 120 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 40 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when K saturation exceeds 4% and K test exceeds 250 pounds per acre\n\nCrop Code 105, Grass Hay (up to 50% legume)-two crops. For 3-4 tons hay (9-12 tons haylage) per acre.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 120 pounds per acre\n\nCrop Code 106, Pasture.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 100 pounds per acre\n\nCrop Codes 105, 106:\n\nCalc. P2O5 requirement = 50 + (50 - no. PX's) = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 80 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 40 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = 170 + (3 - % K sat.) * CEC * 9.36 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 260 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 80 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when K saturation exceeds 4% and K test exceeds 250 pounds per acre\n\nMANAGEMENT STATEMENTS:\n\nCrop Code 101: Apply fertilizer at any convenient time, although fall application may aid winter survival.\n\nIf B test < 0.5 ppm: For best results, use a borated fertilizer every other year. If B test >= 0.5 ppm: Current boron level is sufficient. Apply no boron this year.\n\nCrop Code 102: Apply fertilizer at any convenient time, although fall application may aid winter survival.\n\nCrop Code 104: Apply fertilizer as soon as possible in early spring.\n\nCrop Code 105: Apply 80 pounds of N in early spring and 40 pounds of N for each additional cut or grazing. P2O5 and K2O can be split or applied all at once.\n\nCrop Code 106: Apply one half of N in early spring and remainder in late August or early September. P2O5 and K2O can be split or applied all at once.\n\nFor All Topdressed Crops: Limit lime topdress to 4000 pounds per acre in any one year.\n\nAGRONOMIC CROPS\n\nCrop Codes 151 to 175\n\nNew Seedings\n\nFor all crops\n\nLime is recommended to raise soil pH to both pH 6.0 and 6.5, unless otherwise requested or noted below."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 1af56686-3292-4858-b5e9-3ed4ec6c2fc9
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Crop Code 106: Apply one half of N in early spring and remainder in late August or early September. P2O5 and K2O can be split or applied all at once.\n\nFor All Topdressed Crops: Limit lime topdress to 4000 pounds per acre in any one year.\n\nAGRONOMIC CROPS\n\nCrop Codes 151 to 175\n\nNew Seedings\n\nFor all crops\n\nLime is recommended to raise soil pH to both pH 6.0 and 6.5, unless otherwise requested or noted below.\n\nCEC and nutrient balance are calculated assuming a target pH of 6.5 (current pH if higher) unless otherwise requested or noted below.\n\nNutrient requirements rounded to nearest 10 pounds per acre.\n\nCrop Code 151, Alfalfa/Grass.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 50 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 requirement = 25 + (50 - no. PX's) * 3 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 170 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 50 pounds per acre when P test exceeds 14 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 40 pounds per acre\n\nOptimum range = 10 - 40 pounds P per acre\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = 80 + (4 - % K sat.) * CEC * 9.36 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 200 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 80 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when K saturation exceeds 5%\n\nOptimum range = 3.5 - 5.0 % K saturation\n\nCrop Code 152, Clover/Grass, and Crop Code 170, Conservation seedings/steep slopes/ditches.\n\nFor crop code 170 only:\n\nLime recommended to raise soil pH to 6.0 only.\n\nCEC and nutrient balance calculations assume a target pH of 6.0 or current pH if higher.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 40 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 requirement = 20 + (50 - no. PX's) * 2 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 100 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 40 pounds per acre when P test exceeds 14 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 40 pounds per acre\n\nOptimum range = 10 - 40 pounds P per acre\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = 50 + (4 - % K sat.) * CEC * 9.36 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 150 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 50 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when K saturation exceeds 5%\n\nOptimum range = 3.5 - 5.0 % K saturation\n\nCrop Code 154, Grass only (no legumes)"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 26e12c6e-1924-4ff1-94c4-576fa7717330
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Maximum = 100 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 40 pounds per acre when P test exceeds 14 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 40 pounds per acre\n\nOptimum range = 10 - 40 pounds P per acre\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = 50 + (4 - % K sat.) * CEC * 9.36 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 150 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 50 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when K saturation exceeds 5%\n\nOptimum range = 3.5 - 5.0 % K saturation\n\nCrop Code 154, Grass only (no legumes)\n\nNitrogen requirement = 60 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 requirement = (50 - no. PX's) * 2 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 100 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 40 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 30 pounds per acre\n\nOptimum range = 10 - 30 pounds P per acre\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = (3 - % K sat.) * CEC * 9.36 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 100 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 40 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when K saturation exceeds 4%\n\nOptimum range = 2.8 - 4.0 % K saturation\n\nFor all small grains (crop codes 155, 156, 157, 158, 167):\n\nOptimum P range = 10 - 23 pounds P per acre\n\nOptimum K range = 2.8 - 4.0 % K saturation\n\nCrop Code 155, Oats. For a 75 - 100 bushel yield per acre.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 50 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 requirement = 60 + (50 - no. PX's) = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 90 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 23 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = 110 + (3 - % K sat.) * CEC * 9.36 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 160 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 50 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when K saturation exceeds 4%\n\nCrop Code 156, Barley. For a 60 - 80 bushel yield per acre.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 60 pounds per acre\n\nP2O5 and K2O requirements same as 155 (oats).\n\nCrop Code 157, Spring Wheat. For a 50 - 60 bushel yield per acre.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 60 pounds per acre\n\nP2O5 and K2O requirements same as 155 (oats).\n\nCrop Code 167, Winter Wheat. For a 50 - 80 bushel yield per acre.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 30 pounds per acre\n\nP2O5 and K2O requirements same as 155 (oats)."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 765820a2-2247-494e-87c1-ad8c4c1cad31
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Crop Code 156, Barley. For a 60 - 80 bushel yield per acre.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 60 pounds per acre\n\nP2O5 and K2O requirements same as 155 (oats).\n\nCrop Code 157, Spring Wheat. For a 50 - 60 bushel yield per acre.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 60 pounds per acre\n\nP2O5 and K2O requirements same as 155 (oats).\n\nCrop Code 167, Winter Wheat. For a 50 - 80 bushel yield per acre.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 30 pounds per acre\n\nP2O5 and K2O requirements same as 155 (oats).\n\nCrop Code 158, Winter Rye. For a 25 bushel yield per acre.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 30 pounds per acre\n\nP2O5 and K2O requirements same as 155 (oats).\n\nCrop Code 159, Buckwheat. For a 25 bushel yield per acre.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 20 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 requirement = 20 + (50 - no. PX's) * 0.5 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 40 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 8 pounds per acre\n\nOptimum range = 5.5 - 8.0 pounds P per acre\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = 20 + (3 - % K sat.) * CEC * 9.36 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 40 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when K saturation exceeds 3%\n\nOptimum range = 2.1 - 3.0 % K saturation\n\nCrop Code 160: Soybean, Lupin. For a 40 bushel yield per acre.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 30 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 requirement = 40 + (50 - no. PX's) = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 60 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 40 pounds per acre\n\nOptimum range = 10 - 40 pounds P per acre\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = 60 + (3 - % K sat.) * CEC * 9.36 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 90 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 30 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when K saturation exceeds 4%\n\nOptimum range = 2.8 - 4.0 % K saturation\n\nCrop Code 161, Sudan Grass/Sorghum-Sudan hybrids and Crop Code 163, Millet. For a 5 ton dry matter (15 ton green) yield per acre.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 40 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 requirement = 50 + (50 - no. PX's) = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 80 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 30 pounds per acre\n\nOptimum range = 10 - 30 pounds P per acre"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 683e7b5f-542b-4baa-82c4-11d9ca23557a
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Minimum = 30 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when K saturation exceeds 4%\n\nOptimum range = 2.8 - 4.0 % K saturation\n\nCrop Code 161, Sudan Grass/Sorghum-Sudan hybrids and Crop Code 163, Millet. For a 5 ton dry matter (15 ton green) yield per acre.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 40 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 requirement = 50 + (50 - no. PX's) = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 80 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 30 pounds per acre\n\nOptimum range = 10 - 30 pounds P per acre\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = 150 + (3 - % K sat.) * CEC * 9.36 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 220 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 80 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when K saturation exceeds 4% and K test exceeds 250 pounds per acre\n\nOptimum range = 2.8 - 4.0 % K saturation\n\nCrop Code 164, Silage Corn. For a 6 ton dry matter (20 ton green) yield per acre.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 150 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 requirement = 80 + (50 - no. PX's) = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 120 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 40 pounds per acre\n\nOptimum range = 10 - 40 pounds P per acre\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = 180 + (3 - % K sat.) * CEC * 9.36 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 240 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 90 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when K saturation exceeds 4% and K test exceeds 250 pounds per acre\n\nOptimum range = 2.8 - 4.0 % K saturation\n\n***See management statements for zinc recommendations***\n\nCrop Code 166, Corn Grain. For a 200 bushel yield per acre.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 200 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 requirement = 80 + (50 - no. PX's) = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 120 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 40 pounds per acre\n\nOptimum range = 10 - 40 pounds P per acre\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = 65 + (3 - % K sat.) * CEC * 9.36 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 100 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 50 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when K saturation exceeds 4% and K test exceeds 250 pounds per acre\n\nOptimum range = 2.8 - 4.0 % K saturation\n\n***See management statements for zinc recommendations***"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: f3a6953a-9c06-4450-8b3f-f381b7724308
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Maximum = 120 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 40 pounds per acre\n\nOptimum range = 10 - 40 pounds P per acre\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = 65 + (3 - % K sat.) * CEC * 9.36 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 100 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 50 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when K saturation exceeds 4% and K test exceeds 250 pounds per acre\n\nOptimum range = 2.8 - 4.0 % K saturation\n\n***See management statements for zinc recommendations***\n\nCrop Code 175, Brassica Forages.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 100 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 requirement = 50 + (50 - no. PX's) = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 80 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 40 pounds per acre\n\nOptimum range = 10 - 40 pounds P per acre\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = 150 + (3 - % K sat.) * CEC * 9.36 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 220 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 70 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when K saturation is above 4 % and K test exceeds 250 pounds per acre\n\nOptimum range = 2.8 - 4.0 % K saturation\n\nCrop Code 177, Canola.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 90 pounds per acre following corn or grain Nitrogen requirement = 70 pounds per acre following potatoes Nitrogen requirement = 50 pounds per acre following a legume cover crop\n\nCalc. P2O5 requirement = 50 + (50 - no. PX's) = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 80 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 30 pounds per acre\n\nOptimum range = 10 - 30 pounds P per acre\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = 70 + (3 - % K sat.) * CEC * 9.36 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 110 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 40 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when K saturation is above 4 %\n\nOptimum range = 2.8 - 4.0 % K saturation\n\nMANAGEMENT STATEMENTS:\n\nCrop Codes 151, 152, 154 - for no till seeding: If lime requirement is over 2 tons per acre, apply 2 tons per acre 6 months before seeding, the remainder (up to 2 tons per acre) at seeding time.\n\nCrop Code 151: If B test < 0.5 ppm: Fertilizer should contain enough boron to supply 3-4 pounds of actual boron per acre."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 6bf20f83-90c1-4843-93a7-f46d4e35a84f
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Maximum = 110 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 40 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when K saturation is above 4 %\n\nOptimum range = 2.8 - 4.0 % K saturation\n\nMANAGEMENT STATEMENTS:\n\nCrop Codes 151, 152, 154 - for no till seeding: If lime requirement is over 2 tons per acre, apply 2 tons per acre 6 months before seeding, the remainder (up to 2 tons per acre) at seeding time.\n\nCrop Code 151: If B test < 0.5 ppm: Fertilizer should contain enough boron to supply 3-4 pounds of actual boron per acre.\n\nCrop Codes 155, 156, and 157: Topdressing 30 - 40 pounds per acre additional nitrogen in spring after tillering (growth stage 30) can result in yield response under good growing conditions and when lodging resistant varieties are being grown.\n\nCrop Code 158: If grain is to be harvested, topdress 30 - 40 pounds per acre nitrogen in spring after tillering (growth stage 30).\n\nCrop Codes 161, 163 (as forage, NOT green manure): If no manure has been used, apply an additional 40 pounds nitrogen at planting time. Apply an additional 40 pounds per acre of nitrogen after first harvest to increase growth of second crop.\n\nCrop Code 164, 166: Apply up to 40 pounds per acre each of N, P2O5 and K2O through the planter. Remaining P2O5 and K2O should be broadcast and tilled in preplant.\n\nIdeally, the remaining nitrogen application will be determined by using a mid-season nitrate soil test when corn is 8 - 10 in. tall (instructions are available). Specific recommendations for nitrogen sidedress will be made at that time.\n\nIf you can't take a mid-season nitrate soil test, subtract nitrogen applied as starter from total pounds per acre N recommended. Apply 80% of this remainder when corn is 8 - 10 in. tall.\n\nFor organic sources of nitrogen, calculate application rate to supply 150 pounds of available N/acre for a 20 ton silage yield or 200 lb available N/acre for 200 bushel grain yield."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 1870fe04-c6c8-44f4-a452-725c65ebd8d4
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "If you can't take a mid-season nitrate soil test, subtract nitrogen applied as starter from total pounds per acre N recommended. Apply 80% of this remainder when corn is 8 - 10 in. tall.\n\nFor organic sources of nitrogen, calculate application rate to supply 150 pounds of available N/acre for a 20 ton silage yield or 200 lb available N/acre for 200 bushel grain yield.\n\nZinc recommendations (crop code 164 and 166): If zinc test < 1.0 ppm: Apply 2 pounds actual zinc per acre in starter fertilizer (banded) for 2 to 3 years, then retest before applying more. An alternative is to broadcast and till in 8 - 10 pounds actual zinc per acre once every 3 to 5 years. If zinc test = 1.0-2.0 ppm: Soil zinc level is adequate. There is very little probability of a yield response to added zinc. If zinc test > 2.0 ppm: Soil zinc level is excessive. Use a starter fertilizer without zinc if possible.\n\nCrop Code 167: Topdress 40 - 60 pounds nitrogen per acre in spring after tillering (growth stage 30). Use lowest topdress rate for lodging susceptible varieties.\n\nCrop Code 177: If S test < 15 ppm: Apply 15 pounds actual sulfur/acre, in the fertilizer blend.\n\nIf B test < 0.5 ppm: Apply 1-2 pounds actual boron/acre, broadcast in the fertilizer blend. Do not band fertilizer which contains boron.\n\nFor All Agronomic Seeding: For any lime recommendation over 3 tons per acre: Apply 1/2 before plowing, disk in the remainder before seeding.\n\nWhen plowing down sod with > 25% legume: Plowing down a legume green manure or a heavy legume hay stand can provide 40 - 75 pounds nitrogen per acre the first year. Reduce recommended nitrogen application accordingly.\n\nTURF TOPDRESS\n\nCrop Codes 201 to 210\n\nFor all crops:\n\nLime is recommended to raise soil pH to 6.0, unless otherwise requested.\n\nCEC and nutrient balance calculations assume a target pH of 6.0 (current pH if higher) unless otherwise requested.\n\nOptimum P test level as noted for each code."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: d50bd4c6-a0a1-4c04-b483-5640e7b22c20
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "TURF TOPDRESS\n\nCrop Codes 201 to 210\n\nFor all crops:\n\nLime is recommended to raise soil pH to 6.0, unless otherwise requested.\n\nCEC and nutrient balance calculations assume a target pH of 6.0 (current pH if higher) unless otherwise requested.\n\nOptimum P test level as noted for each code.\n\nOptimum K test level = 2.8 - 4.0 % K saturation, unless otherwise noted.\n\n****--------------------------------------------------------****\n\nCrop Code 201, Lawns and Playgrounds\n\nNitrogen requirement = 2 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nCalc. P2O5 requirement = (50 - no. PX's) / 43.6 = pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nMaximum = 1.2 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nMinimum = 0.7 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 10 pounds per acre.\n\nOptimum P test level = 7 \u2013 10 pounds P per acre.\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = (4 - % K sat.) * CEC * 0.21 = pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nMaximum = 2.3 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nMinimum = 0.7 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nRecommend 0 when K saturation exceeds 4% and K exceeds 250 pounds per acre test level.\n\nFERTILIZER OPTIONS:\n\n1. If K2O requirement > 1.6 and P2O5 requirement > 0, apply 17 pounds 12-4-8 fertilizer per 1000 sq. ft.\n\n2. If K2O requirement > 1.6 and P2O5 requirement = 0, apply 10 pounds 20-0-20 or 30 pounds 6-0-6 fertilizer per 1000 sq. ft.\n\n3. If K2O requirement = 0.8 - 1.6 and P2O5 requirement = 0, apply 8 pounds 24-0-11 or 6-7 pounds 30-0-15 fertilizer per 1000 sq. ft..\n\n4. If K2O requirement < 0.8 and P2O5 requirement = 0, apply 20 pounds of 10 -0-4 or 5 pounds of 38-0-0 fertilizer per 1000 sq. ft.\n\n5. For all other cases, apply 10 pounds of 20-4-8 or 22-6-8 fertilizer per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nMANAGEMENT STATEMENTS:\n\n1. For chemical fertilizers: Apply \u00bd of fertilizer in early spring and \u00bd in late August. To prevent burn, apply when grass is dry and water in immediately.\n\n2. Limit lime topdress to 100 lbs per 1000 sq. ft. in any one year."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 4aa78ae7-9581-4b51-bdba-6d9c1041df9b
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "4. If K2O requirement < 0.8 and P2O5 requirement = 0, apply 20 pounds of 10 -0-4 or 5 pounds of 38-0-0 fertilizer per 1000 sq. ft.\n\n5. For all other cases, apply 10 pounds of 20-4-8 or 22-6-8 fertilizer per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nMANAGEMENT STATEMENTS:\n\n1. For chemical fertilizers: Apply \u00bd of fertilizer in early spring and \u00bd in late August. To prevent burn, apply when grass is dry and water in immediately.\n\n2. Limit lime topdress to 100 lbs per 1000 sq. ft. in any one year.\n\n3. If clippings are left on: Reduce recommended yearly fertilizer rates by \u00bd. Apply this \u00bd rate all in late summer or \u00bc rate in spring and \u00bc rate in late August.\n\n4. For organic fertilizers (enhanced manure or compost): Adjust the application rate to provide 1 pound actual nitrogen per 1000 sq. ft. for the year. Full year rate may be applied all in the spring or all in late summer.\n\n5. If CEC < 5 or if percent organic matter < 3 %, leave clippings on when mowing. Rake 1 inch of screened compost through the grass each year, if possible, to improve the soil's nutrient and water holding capacity over time.\n\nCrop Code 202, Baseball Fields, Golf Fairways\n\nNitrogen requirement = 2 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nCalc. P2O5 requirement = (50 - no. PX's) / 43.6 = pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nMaximum = 1.2 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nMinimum = 0.7 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 10 pounds per acre.\n\nOptimum P test level = 7 \u2013 10 pounds P per acre\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = (4 - % K sat.) * CEC * 0.21 = pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nMaximum = 2.5 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nMinimum = 1.2 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nRecommend 0 when K saturation exceeds 4% and K exceeds 250 pounds per acre test level.\n\nFERTILIZER OPTIONS:\n\nP2O5 requirement > 0.8 < = 0.8 0 > 0.8 < = 0.8 0 > 0.8\n\nK2O requirement > 1.6 < = 1.6 0 < = 1.6 > 1.6 > = 1.2 0\n\napply on 1000 sq. ft.\n\n20 pounds 20-10-20 10 pounds 20-4-8 5 pounds 46-0-0 or 38-0-0 10 pounds 20-10-10 10 pounds 20-4-16 10 pounds 20-0-12 10 pounds 20-10-5\n\nMANAGEMENT STATEMENTS:"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: ea5036b6-c64f-491e-8f6e-89ced24d036d
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Maximum = 2.5 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nMinimum = 1.2 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nRecommend 0 when K saturation exceeds 4% and K exceeds 250 pounds per acre test level.\n\nFERTILIZER OPTIONS:\n\nP2O5 requirement > 0.8 < = 0.8 0 > 0.8 < = 0.8 0 > 0.8\n\nK2O requirement > 1.6 < = 1.6 0 < = 1.6 > 1.6 > = 1.2 0\n\napply on 1000 sq. ft.\n\n20 pounds 20-10-20 10 pounds 20-4-8 5 pounds 46-0-0 or 38-0-0 10 pounds 20-10-10 10 pounds 20-4-16 10 pounds 20-0-12 10 pounds 20-10-5\n\nMANAGEMENT STATEMENTS:\n\n1. Apply 1/3 of fertilizer in April, 1/3 in June, and 1/3 in late August. To prevent turf burn, apply when grass is dry and water in immediately.\n\n2. Fertilizer grades recommended can be substituted by other grades of similar N -P2O5- K2O ratio. Adjust application rate to match nitrogen requirement.\n\n3. Use slow release or organic forms of nitrogen to prevent burn and to obtain more uniform growth.\n\n4. Limit lime topdress to 100 pounds per 1000 sq. ft. in any one year.\n\n5. If CEC < 5 or if percent organic matter < 3 %, leave clippings on when mowing. Apply a pelleted compost product each year to improve the soil's nutrient and water holding capacity over time.\n\nCrop Code 203, Football, Soccer, Field Hockey, and other heavy-traffic athletic fields.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 3 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nCalc. P2O5 requirement = (50 - no. PX's) / 43.6 = pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nMaximum = 1 pound per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nMinimum = 0.6 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 20 pounds per acre.\n\nOptimum P test level = 10 - 20 pounds P per acre\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = (4 - % K sat.) * CEC * 0.21 = pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nMaximum = 2 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nMinimum = 1 pound per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nRecommend 0 when K saturation exceeds 4% and K exceeds 250 pounds per acre test level.\n\nFERTILIZER OPTIONS:\n\nP2O5 requirement > 0.8 < = 0.8\n\n0\n\n> 0.8 < = 0.8 0 > 0.8\n\nK2O requirement > 1.6 < = 1.6\n\n0\n\n< = 1.6 > 1.6 > = 1.2 0\n\napply on 1000 sq. ft."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 4cd9fa17-a1a7-4b4a-bcc2-3a6f0452958a
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Optimum P test level = 10 - 20 pounds P per acre\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = (4 - % K sat.) * CEC * 0.21 = pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nMaximum = 2 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nMinimum = 1 pound per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nRecommend 0 when K saturation exceeds 4% and K exceeds 250 pounds per acre test level.\n\nFERTILIZER OPTIONS:\n\nP2O5 requirement > 0.8 < = 0.8\n\n0\n\n> 0.8 < = 0.8 0 > 0.8\n\nK2O requirement > 1.6 < = 1.6\n\n0\n\n< = 1.6 > 1.6 > = 1.2 0\n\napply on 1000 sq. ft.\n\n25 pounds 12-4-8 15 pounds 20-4-8 6-7 pounds 46-0-0 or 8 pounds 38-0-0 14 pounds 22-6-6 15 pounds 20-4-12 15 pounds 20-0-12 15 pounds 20-10-5\n\nMANAGEMENT STATEMENTS:\n\n1. Apply 50% of fertilizer in early spring, 25 % in June, and 25 % in early August with adequate rainfall or irrigation.\n\n2. Fertilizer grades recommended can be substituted by other grades of similar N -P2O5- K2O ratio. Adjust application rate to match nitrogen requirement.\n\n3. Apply fertilizer when turf is dry and water in immediately to prevent burn.\n\n4. Limit lime topdress to 100 pounds per 1000 sq. ft. in any one year.\n\n5. If CEC < 5 or if percent organic matte r < 3 %, leave clippings on when mowing. Apply a pelleted compost product each year to improve the soil's nutrient and water holding capacity over time.\n\nCrop Code 205, 206, Golf Greens and Tees\n\nNitrogen requirement = 3 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nCalc. P2O5 requirement = (50 - no. PX's) * 1.2 / 43.65 = pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nMaximum = 1.3 pounds per 1000 sq.ft.\n\nMinimum = 0.7 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 20 pounds per acre.\n\nOptimum P test level = 10 - 20 pounds P per acre\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = (4 - % K sat.) * CEC * 0.21 = pounds per 1000 sq.ft.\n\nMaximum = 4 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nMinimum = 1.2 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nRecommend 0 when K saturation exceeds 4% and K exceeds 250 pounds per acre test level.\n\nFERTILIZER OPTIONS:\n\nP2O5 requirement\n\nK2O requirement\n\napply on 1000 sq. ft.**\n\n> 0.8 < = 0.8 0 > 0.8 > 0.8 < = 0.8 0\n\n> 2.0 < = 2.0 0 < = 2.0 0 > 2.0 > = 1.2"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 00341794-124c-47c7-95da-6cc34a8ce5f5
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Optimum P test level = 10 - 20 pounds P per acre\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = (4 - % K sat.) * CEC * 0.21 = pounds per 1000 sq.ft.\n\nMaximum = 4 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nMinimum = 1.2 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nRecommend 0 when K saturation exceeds 4% and K exceeds 250 pounds per acre test level.\n\nFERTILIZER OPTIONS:\n\nP2O5 requirement\n\nK2O requirement\n\napply on 1000 sq. ft.**\n\n> 0.8 < = 0.8 0 > 0.8 > 0.8 < = 0.8 0\n\n> 2.0 < = 2.0 0 < = 2.0 0 > 2.0 > = 1.2\n\n7-8 pounds 20-10-15 7-8 pounds 20-4-8 4 pounds 38-0-0 7-8 pounds 20-10-10 7-8 pounds 20-10-5 12-13 pounds 12-4-8 7 pounds 22-0-16\n\n** Rates are for each application, assuming 2 fertilizer applications per year. **\n\nMANAGEMENT STATEMENTS:\n\n1. Apply recommended rates of fertilizer in early spring. Repeat same application rate in late August.\n\n2. Apply topdress when grass is thoroughly dry or can be watered immediately to prevent burn.\n\n3. If fertilizer grades recommended are not available, select a substitute with similar N - P2O5-K2O ratio. Adjust application rate to match nitrogen requirement.\n\n4. Limit lime topdress to 50 pounds per 1000 s q. ft. in any one year.\n\n5. If CEC < 5 or if percent organic matter < 3 %, apply a pelleted organic product each year to improve the soil's nutrient and water holding capacity over time.\n\nTURF SEEDING or SODDING\n\nLime recommended to raise soil pH to 6. 0 unless otherwise requested.\n\nCEC and nutrient balance calculated assuming a target pH of 6.0 (current pH if higher) unless otherwise requested.\n\nOptimum P test level = 10 - 20 pounds P per acre.\n\nOptimum K test level = 2.1 - 3.0 % K saturation.\n\n****---------------------------------------------------------****\n\nCrop Code 211, all Turf Seedings\n\nNitrogen requirement = 2 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nCalc. P2O5 requirement = 4 * (50 - no. PX's) / 43.6 = pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nMaximum = 5 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nMinimum = 0.1 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nRecommend 0 when P tests exceeds 20 pounds per acre"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 97b6845e-5862-4636-a8be-9d1573bf5da9
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Optimum P test level = 10 - 20 pounds P per acre.\n\nOptimum K test level = 2.1 - 3.0 % K saturation.\n\n****---------------------------------------------------------****\n\nCrop Code 211, all Turf Seedings\n\nNitrogen requirement = 2 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nCalc. P2O5 requirement = 4 * (50 - no. PX's) / 43.6 = pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nMaximum = 5 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nMinimum = 0.1 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nRecommend 0 when P tests exceeds 20 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = (3 - % K sat.) * CEC * 0.21 = pounds per 1000 sq.ft.\n\nMaximum = 4 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nMinimum = 2 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nRecommend 0 when K saturation exceeds 3%\n\nFERTILIZER OPTIONS:\n\nFertilizer recommendations are based primarily on P 2O5 requirement.\n\n1. If P2O5 requirement > 2.0 pounds, apply 20 pounds of 10 -20-20 or 40 pounds of 5-10- 10 fertilizer per 1000 sq. ft.\n\n2. If P2O5 requirement = 0.8 - 2.0 pounds, apply 20 pounds of 10-10-10 fertilizer per 1000 sq. ft.\n\n3. If the P2O5 requirement = 0.5 - 0.7 pounds, apply 20 pounds of 10-5-10 fertilizer per 1000 sq. ft.\n\n4. If P2O5 requirement = 0.1 - 0.4 pounds, apply 10 pounds of 20-4-8 fertilizer per 1000 sq. ft.\n\n5. If P2O5 requirement = 0 and K2O requirement = 0 , apply 4 pounds urea (46 -0-0) or 5 pounds 38-0-0 per 1000 sq. ft.\n\n6. If P2O5 requirement = 0 and K2O requirement > 0 , apply 8 pounds of 24-0-11 or 10 pounds of 20-0-20 fertilizer per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nMANAGEMENT STATEMENTS:\n\n1. Spread lime and fertilizer uniformly and till in 4 -6 inches deep.\n\n2. If soil amendments are not tilled in (as with hydroseeding), use only \u00bd recommended rates of fertilizer and lime.\n\n3. Other fertilizers of similar N-P2O5-K2O ratio may be substituted for the one recommended. Adjust application rate to match nitrogen requirement.\n\n4. If CEC < 5 or if percent organic matter < 5, till in an inch or t wo of compost or peat with any recommended lime and fertilizer before seeding, to improve the soil's nutrient and water holding capacity."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 2fb33733-f875-4ff9-a54c-da73a16a0e0a
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "2. If soil amendments are not tilled in (as with hydroseeding), use only \u00bd recommended rates of fertilizer and lime.\n\n3. Other fertilizers of similar N-P2O5-K2O ratio may be substituted for the one recommended. Adjust application rate to match nitrogen requirement.\n\n4. If CEC < 5 or if percent organic matter < 5, till in an inch or t wo of compost or peat with any recommended lime and fertilizer before seeding, to improve the soil's nutrient and water holding capacity.\n\nCOMMERCIAL VEGETABLES\n\nCrop Codes 301 to 330\n\nFor all crops:\n\nLime recommended to raise soil pH to 6.5 , unless otherwise requested or noted below.\n\nCEC and nutrient balance calculated assuming a target pH of 6.5 (current pH if higher) unless otherwise requested or noted below.\n\nAll nutrient requirements rounded to nearest 10 pounds per acre.\n\nOptimum P range = 20 - 40 pounds P per acre.\n\nOptimum K range = 3.5 - 5.0 % K saturation, unless otherwise specified.\n\n**** ------------------------------------------------------- ****\n\nCrop Codes 310 - All vines (cucumber, gourd, melons, pumpkin, squash); 311 - All niteshades (tomato, eggplant, pepper); 329 - Asparagus (new bed); 330 - Asparagus* (established bed).\n\nFor crop code 330: CEC and nutrient balance are calculated at the current soil pH. No lime is recommended for established beds.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 75 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 requirement = 70 + (50 - no. PX's) * 6 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 140 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 40 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 40 pounds per acre.\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = 200 + (4 - % K sat.) * CEC * 9.36 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 300 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 100 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when K test exceeds 5 % saturation and 250 pounds per acre\n\nMANAGEMENT STATEMENTS:"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 6d840ea3-c2fa-42f1-8567-0dd0d76ad413
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Nitrogen requirement = 75 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 requirement = 70 + (50 - no. PX's) * 6 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 140 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 40 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 40 pounds per acre.\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = 200 + (4 - % K sat.) * CEC * 9.36 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 300 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 100 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when K test exceeds 5 % saturation and 250 pounds per acre\n\nMANAGEMENT STATEMENTS:\n\nCrop Code 310: At planting or transplanting apply 20 pounds N plus all P2O5 and K2O in bands 2 inches below and beside seed or plants. Sidedress 55 pounds N per acre when vines begin to spread. When rain is heavy on sandy soil, apply one extra nitrogen sidedress.\n\nCrop Code 311: Broadcast 30 pounds N plus 1/2 - 3/4 P2O5 and K2O before plowing or apply in bands 4 inches deep and 3 to 4 inches from row at planting. Sidedress 45 pounds N per acre when the first fruit are set. In years of heavy rainfall on sandy soils, apply an extra nitrogen sidedress. Alternative for early determinate tomato varieties: apply 60-100 pounds nitrogen per acre two weeks after first fruit set. If tomatoes are grown under a hoop house, sidedress 25 pounds less N than recommended above.\n\nCrop Codes 310, 311: When transplanting, apply 1/2 pint (one cup) of starter solution around roots. Make solution by dissolving 3 pounds plant starter (10-52-17 or similar) in 50 gallons of water. Use 1 pound in 50 gallons for melons and cucumber plants.\n\nCrop Code 329: Thoroughly till in N, K2O and 1/2 P2O5 and lime before opening furrows. Apply other half P2O5 and lime in furrow bottom before setting crowns.\n\nCrop Code 330: Broadcast and work fertilizer in before cutting season. Apply 30 pounds N per acre at end of cutting season. No lime is recommended on established beds, due to very slow reaction rate.\n\nCrop Codes 302 - Bean (dry and snap); 317 - Pea.\n\nLime recommended to raise soil pH to 6.0 for beans, 6.5 for peas unless otherwise requested."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: e95e4421-0cc0-433d-808c-3dfac45f0b70
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Crop Code 330: Broadcast and work fertilizer in before cutting season. Apply 30 pounds N per acre at end of cutting season. No lime is recommended on established beds, due to very slow reaction rate.\n\nCrop Codes 302 - Bean (dry and snap); 317 - Pea.\n\nLime recommended to raise soil pH to 6.0 for beans, 6.5 for peas unless otherwise requested.\n\nCEC and nutrient balance calculated assuming a target pH of 6.0 for beans and pH 6.5 for peas (current pH if higher) unless otherwise requested.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 40 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 requirement = 40 + (45 - no. PX's) * 6 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 80 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 40 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 40 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = 60 + (3 - % K sat.) * CEC * 9.36 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 90 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 30 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when K test exceeds 5 % saturation\n\nOptimum range = 2.8 - 4.0 % saturation\n\nMANAGEMENT STATEMENTS:\n\nBand 10 pounds N plus all P2O5 and K2O at planting, two inches below and beside the seed. Apply 30 pounds N per acre when plants have 2-3 true leaves, especially in years of heavy rainfall on sandy soils.\n\nEarly determinate varieties have shown a positive yield response in some years to heavier sidedress N applications at the 3-leaf stage. This response would most likely occur in fields with no manure application and no legume green manure plowdowns.\n\nCrop Codes 304 - Beet; 308 - Carrot, parsnip; 313 - Lettuce; 315 - Onion; 322 - Spinach; 328 - Roadside stand mix.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 100 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 requirement = 30 + (50 - no. PX's) * 6 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 60 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 30 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 40 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = 150 + (4 - % K sat.) * CEC * 9.36 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 220 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 70 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when K test exceeds 5 % saturation and 250 pounds per acre\n\nMANAGEMENT STATEMENTS:"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: c09575bf-f0d4-4cca-bf9f-40128f9b45dc
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Nitrogen requirement = 100 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 requirement = 30 + (50 - no. PX's) * 6 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 60 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 30 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 40 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = 150 + (4 - % K sat.) * CEC * 9.36 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 220 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 70 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when K test exceeds 5 % saturation and 250 pounds per acre\n\nMANAGEMENT STATEMENTS:\n\nBroadcast 1/2 the recommended P2O5 and K2O fertilizer before plowing. Drill 25 pounds N and the remaining P2O5 and K2O in bands 2 inches below and to the side of seed at planting.\n\nCrop Codes 304, 308: Sidedress an additional 35 pounds N per acre at 4 weeks and again at 6 weeks after seeding.\n\nCrop Code 304: Use 1-2 pounds of boron (10-20 pounds of borax) per acre in the fertilizer blend.\n\nCrop Code 313: Sidedress an additional 35 pounds N per acre at 3 weeks and again at 5 weeks after thinning or setting in field.\n\nCrop Code 328: Sidedress an additional 30 - 40 pounds N per acre 3 weeks after planting and again: on fruiting vegetables after first fruit set, on vine crops when plants start to vine, on leaf and root crops when 1/3 to 1/2 grown. Apply one sidedress of 75 pounds N on corn when plants are 8 - 12 inches tall.\n\nCrop Codes 320 - Radish; 321 - Rutabaga, turnip.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 35 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 requirement = 30 + (45 - no. PX's) * 6 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 60 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 30 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 40 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = 150 + (4 - % K sat.) * CEC * 9.36 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 220 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 70 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when K test exceeds 5 % saturation and 250 pounds per acre\n\nMANAGEMENT STATEMENTS:"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 965ba125-282d-457a-9606-91c364e6a19a
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Nitrogen requirement = 35 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 requirement = 30 + (45 - no. PX's) * 6 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 60 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 30 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 40 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = 150 + (4 - % K sat.) * CEC * 9.36 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 220 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 70 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when K test exceeds 5 % saturation and 250 pounds per acre\n\nMANAGEMENT STATEMENTS:\n\nBroadcast 1/2 the recommended P2O5 and K2O fertilizer before plowing. Drill N and the remaining P2O5 and K2O in bands 2 inches below and to the side of seed. Use 1-2 pounds of boron (10-20 pounds of borax) per acre in the fertilizer blend.\n\nCrop Code 321: Sidedress an additional 30-60 pounds N per acre 4-6 weeks after seeding when rainfall has been heavy or if soil is low in organic matter.\n\nCrop Codes 305 Broccoli, cauliflower; 306 Brussel sprout, cabbage. [transplants only]\n\nNitrogen requirement = 100 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 requirement = 30 + (45 - no. PX's) * 6 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 60 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 30 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 40 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = 150 + (4.5 - % K sat.) * CEC * 9.36 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 220 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 70 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when K test exceeds 5 % saturation and 250 pounds per acre\n\nMANAGEMENT STATEMENTS:\n\n1. Broadcast 1/2 - 3/4 of P2O5 and K2O before plowing. Drill 25 pounds N plus remaining P2O5 and K2O in bands 4 inches deep and 3 - 4 inches from the row at time of planting. Use 1 - 2 pounds of boron (10-20 pounds of borax) per acre in the fertilizer blend.\n\n2. When transplanting to the field, use 1/2 pint (one cup) of starter solution around roots. Make solution by dissolving 3 pounds of plant starter (10-52-17 or similar) in 50 gallons of water.\n\n3. Sidedress with an additional 35 pounds N per acre 2 - 3 weeks and again at 4 - 6 weeks after setting in field."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 9152b5a2-4012-437d-b878-227efeb232bb
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "2. When transplanting to the field, use 1/2 pint (one cup) of starter solution around roots. Make solution by dissolving 3 pounds of plant starter (10-52-17 or similar) in 50 gallons of water.\n\n3. Sidedress with an additional 35 pounds N per acre 2 - 3 weeks and again at 4 - 6 weeks after setting in field.\n\nCrop Codes 335 - Broccoli and 336 - Cauliflower. [direct seeded and banded system only].\n\nLime recommended to raise soil pH to 6.0, unless otherwise requested.\n\nCEC and nutrient balance calculated assuming a target pH of 6.0 (current pH if higher) unless otherwise requested.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 100 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 requirement = 30 + (50 - no. PX's) * 6 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 100 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 30 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 40 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = 150 + (4.5 - % K sat.) * CEC * 9.36 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 220 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 70 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when K tests exceeds 5 % saturation and 250 pounds per acre\n\nMANAGEMENT STATEMENTS:\n\n1. If soil pH is below 4.5 or if lime requirement to reach pH 6.0 exceeds 6000 pounds per acre: Do not seed cole crops in this field this year. Till in lime thoroughly and allow two years for complete reaction before seeding to cole crops.\n\n2. For most efficient use of fertilizer and best crop response, band all fertilizer 2 inches below and beside row at planting or when making raised beds. Use 2 pounds of boron per acre in the fertilizer blend for broccoli, 3-5 pounds of boron per acre for cauliflower.\n\n3. Crop code 335 nitrogen management: Apply 40 pounds N per acre in the fertilizer band. Sidedress an additional 30 pounds N per acre at 2 weeks prior to heading (about 6 weeks after\n\nseeding). Repeat 30 pounds N sidedress when 1/2 inch heads appear (about 8 weeks after seeding). Use ammonium nitrate as the nitrogen source for sidedress."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: a423d834-36a5-4c1c-9a44-5d3474049fde
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "3. Crop code 335 nitrogen management: Apply 40 pounds N per acre in the fertilizer band. Sidedress an additional 30 pounds N per acre at 2 weeks prior to heading (about 6 weeks after\n\nseeding). Repeat 30 pounds N sidedress when 1/2 inch heads appear (about 8 weeks after seeding). Use ammonium nitrate as the nitrogen source for sidedress.\n\n4. Crop code 336 nitrogen management: Apply 40 pounds N per acre in the fertilizer band. Sidedress an additional 20 pounds N per acre at each application - 6, 9, and 11 weeks after seeding. Use ammonium nitrate.\n\nCrop Code 324 (sweet corn).\n\nLime recommended to raise soil pH to 6.0 unless otherwise requested.\n\nCEC and nutrient balance calculated assuming a target pH of 6.0 (current pH if higher) unless otherwise requested.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 100 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 requirement = 40 + (45 - no. PX's) * 6 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 80 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 40 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 40 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = 100 + (4 - % K sat.) * CEC * 9.36 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 150 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 50 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when K test exceeds 5 % saturation and 250 pounds per acre\n\nMANAGEMENT STATEMENTS:\n\n1. Apply 25 pounds N plus all P2O5 and K2O in bands 2 inches below and beside seed when planting.\n\n2. Sidedress N as indicated by mid-season nitrate soil test or apply an additional 75 pounds N per acre when plants are 8 - 12 inches tall. Sidedress only 50 pounds N if plants were started under plastic.\n\n3. Zinc recommendations:\n\nIf zinc test < 1.0 ppm: Apply 2 pounds actual zinc per acre in starter fertilizer (banded) for 2 to 3 years, then retest before applying more. An alternative is to broadcast and till in 8 - 10 pounds actual zinc per acre once every 3 to 5 years.\n\nIf zinc test = 1.0 - 2.0 ppm: Soil zinc level is adequate. There is very little probability of a yield response to added zinc."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 7bb7f551-fd53-4fd0-a149-eb7b34d98501
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "3. Zinc recommendations:\n\nIf zinc test < 1.0 ppm: Apply 2 pounds actual zinc per acre in starter fertilizer (banded) for 2 to 3 years, then retest before applying more. An alternative is to broadcast and till in 8 - 10 pounds actual zinc per acre once every 3 to 5 years.\n\nIf zinc test = 1.0 - 2.0 ppm: Soil zinc level is adequate. There is very little probability of a yield response to added zinc.\n\nIf zinc test > 2.0 ppm: Soil zinc level is excessive. Use a starter fertilizer without zinc if possible.\n\nFor All Commercial Vegetables:\n\nADDITIONAL MANAGEMENT STATEMENTS\n\nFor any lime recommendation over 4 tons per acre: Limit lime application to 8000 pounds per acre in any one year. Total lime requirement to reach a target pH can be met over 3 years.\n\nWhen plowing down sod with > 25% legume: Plowing down a legume green manure or a heavy legume hay stand can provide 40 - 75 pounds nitrogen per acre the first year. Reduce recommended nitrogen application accordingly.\n\nIf soil P and organic matter are not excessive: Animal manures are a good source of organic matter and essential nutrients. 650 bushels of cow, hog, or horse manure or 325 bushels of poultry, sheep, or goat manure per acre can generally be substituted for 1/4 - 1/3 the recommended N, P2O5, and K2O.\n\nCONVENTIONAL HOME GARDEN\n\nCrop Code 391\n\nIncludes Vegetables and Small Fruit\n\n(less than 1 acre)\n\nLime recommended to raise soil pH to 6.5, unless otherwise requested.\n\nCEC and nutrient balance calculated assuming a target pH of 6.5 (current pH if higher), unless otherwise requested.\n\nAll lime and fertilizer recommendations are made on a 1000 sq. ft. basis.\n\nOptimum P range = 20 - 40 pounds P per acre.\n\nOptimum K range = 3.5 - 5.0 % K saturation.\n\n****---------------------------------------------------------****\n\nNitrogen requirement = 2.5 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nCalc. P2O5 requirement = (50 - no. PX's) * 5 / 43.56 = pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nMaximum = 5.75 pounds per 1000 sq. ft."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 230d9b57-31b2-4a3c-858d-93668afa6313
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "All lime and fertilizer recommendations are made on a 1000 sq. ft. basis.\n\nOptimum P range = 20 - 40 pounds P per acre.\n\nOptimum K range = 3.5 - 5.0 % K saturation.\n\n****---------------------------------------------------------****\n\nNitrogen requirement = 2.5 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nCalc. P2O5 requirement = (50 - no. PX's) * 5 / 43.56 = pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nMaximum = 5.75 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nMinimum = 1.15 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\n(Minimum P2O5 recommendation optional when P test falls between 40 - 80 pounds per acre)\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 80 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = (4.5 - % K sat.) * CEC * 0.21 = pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nMaximum = 6.9 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nMinimum = 1.15 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nRecommend 0 when K saturation exceeds 4.5%\n\nFERTILIZER OPTIONS:\n\n1. If P2O5 requirement >= 4 and K2O requirement >= 4, apply 40 to 50 pounds of 5-10-10 fertilizer per 1000 sq. ft.of area.\n\n2. If P2O5 requirement = 3-4 and K2O requirement >= 3, apply 23 pounds of 10-15-15 fertilizer per 1000 sq. ft. of area.\n\n3. If P2O5 requirement < 3 and K2O requirement < 3, apply 23 pounds of 10-10-10 fertilizer per 1000 sq. ft. of area.\n\n4. If P2O5 requirement < 3 and K2O requirement >= 3, apply 17.5 pounds of 15-8-12 fertilizer per 1000 sq. ft. of area.\n\n5. If P2O5 requirement >= 3 and K2O requirement < 4, apply 40-50 pounds of 5-10-5 fertilizer per 1000 sq. ft. of area.\n\n** For all fertilizer options 1 - 5: Other fertilizer grades with similar N-P2O5-K2O ratio can be substituted if the application rate is adjusted to match nitrogen requirement."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 3f44f8cb-14a1-4410-bfe1-fe2d3bc99d61
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "4. If P2O5 requirement < 3 and K2O requirement >= 3, apply 17.5 pounds of 15-8-12 fertilizer per 1000 sq. ft. of area.\n\n5. If P2O5 requirement >= 3 and K2O requirement < 4, apply 40-50 pounds of 5-10-5 fertilizer per 1000 sq. ft. of area.\n\n** For all fertilizer options 1 - 5: Other fertilizer grades with similar N-P2O5-K2O ratio can be substituted if the application rate is adjusted to match nitrogen requirement.\n\n6. If P2O5 requirement <= 1.15 and K2O requirement <= 2, major nutrient needed is nitrogen, unless soil organic matter is optimum or excessive (see Management Statement 6 below). Apply 10 pounds of 10-10-10 or 14-14-14 fertilizer per 1000 sq. ft. of area. Apply in early spring as a starter. When plants are 3-4 weeks old, sidedress with 2 pounds of ammonium nitrate or 2 pounds of urea per 1000 sq. ft. of area.\n\n7. For all but option 6 above, you may more accurately meet your N-P2O5-K2O requirements by substituting a fertilizer mixed from single-nutrient sources as follows:\n\n5.5 pounds of urea (46-0-0)\n\nplus\n\n(P2O5 req. * 2.2) = pounds triple-superphosphate (0-46-0)\n\nplus\n\n(K2O req. * 1.7) = pounds muriate of potash (0-0-60)\n\nMix these components together very thoroughly and broadcast on 1000 sq. ft. of garden area or band beside and below 1000 ft. of row as a substitute for the commercial blend recommended.\n\nMANAGEMENT STATEMENTS:\n\n1. When lime is needed, broadcast uniformly over soil at the specified rate and till in to a depth of 6-7 inches in spring or fall.\n\n2. Limit lime application rate to 175 pounds per 1000 sq. ft. in any one year. Lime requirement can be met over a period of several years."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 2d98968b-de94-4597-9118-50cb651b54c5
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Mix these components together very thoroughly and broadcast on 1000 sq. ft. of garden area or band beside and below 1000 ft. of row as a substitute for the commercial blend recommended.\n\nMANAGEMENT STATEMENTS:\n\n1. When lime is needed, broadcast uniformly over soil at the specified rate and till in to a depth of 6-7 inches in spring or fall.\n\n2. Limit lime application rate to 175 pounds per 1000 sq. ft. in any one year. Lime requirement can be met over a period of several years.\n\n3. For best efficiency, fertilizer should be banded 2 - 3 inches below and 2 - 3 inches beside the rows. Banding is more important when soil P or K test low. When banding, assume 1000 sq. ft. of area equals 1000 ft. of row (1 ft. rooting width). Fertilizer may be broadcast and tilled in to adjust overall fertility, but this may encourage weed growth. Fertilizer should always be applied in the spring.\n\n4. If soil pH exceeds 7.0, apply 15 pounds yellow (elemental)sulfur per 1000 sq. ft. of area to reduce pH to 6.5. Use 30 pounds per 1000 sq. ft. if pH exceeds 7.5. Broadcast sulfur uniformly if needed and till in thoroughly. Aluminum sulfate may be used at 6 times the above sulfur rates for the same effect in less time.\n\n5. In general, 15 bushels of cow, hog, or horse manure; or 7 - 8 bushels of poultry, sheep, goat, or rabbit manure per 1000 sq. ft. may be used as a substitute for 1/4 to 1/3 of the recommended fertilizer additions. Manure use should be curtailed or stopped for a year or more if either soil P or organic matter test levels are excessive."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 0a4ed838-d76f-49eb-93fb-8068e8141742
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "5. In general, 15 bushels of cow, hog, or horse manure; or 7 - 8 bushels of poultry, sheep, goat, or rabbit manure per 1000 sq. ft. may be used as a substitute for 1/4 to 1/3 of the recommended fertilizer additions. Manure use should be curtailed or stopped for a year or more if either soil P or organic matter test levels are excessive.\n\n6. Optional nitrogen credit for organic matter level: If organic matter test = 5 - 8 %, the natural breakdown of soil organic matter should supply half or more of the total seasonal nitrogen requirement of most vegetables. If organic matter tested > 8 %, the soil should be able to supply the full seasonal nitrogen requirement of most vegetables. These organic matter/nitrogen equivalences assume the regular use of animal manures or compost. These assumptions may not be valid following the heavy use of peat moss, sawdust, or wood chips.\n\nTo make an adjustment, use the same rate of a lower nitrogen fertilizer than the one recommended (example: 5-10-10 rather than 10-10-10) or adjust the rate of the nitrogen fertilizer when sidedressing (Fertilizer Option 6) or when mixing your own fertilizer blend (Fertilizer Option 7).\n\n7. If no lime is needed or if potassium is excessive and you are using wood ash, discontinue the use of ash until both lime and potassium are needed again. This will help avoid problems with excessive pH and nutrient imbalances.\n\n8. If both K2O and lime are needed: wood ash acts as both a liming material and a source of potash (K2O). Reduce lime application rate 1.5 pounds for each 1 pound of wood ash used. A fertilizer lower in K2O than the one recommended may be substituted if wood ash is used (example: 5-10-5 rather than 5-10-10)."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 7328d663-6a84-4905-8ecd-09cd80e970e7
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "8. If both K2O and lime are needed: wood ash acts as both a liming material and a source of potash (K2O). Reduce lime application rate 1.5 pounds for each 1 pound of wood ash used. A fertilizer lower in K2O than the one recommended may be substituted if wood ash is used (example: 5-10-5 rather than 5-10-10).\n\n9. For garden potatoes: reserve an area for potatoes and rotate alternate years with sweet corn. Maintain pH in the reserve area at 5.5, lime remaining garden to pH 6.5. If pH is already above 5.5, grow scab-resistant potato varieties such as Norland, Belrus, Waseon, Superior, or any Russet variety.\n\n10. For information on lead contamination of garden soils, see \"Lead Scan\" on p. 16 in the front part of the Handbook.\n\nGENERAL ORGANIC\n\nCrop Code 392\n\nIncludes Home Gardens, Commercial Vegetables,\n\nSmall Fruits and Flowers.\n\nLime recommended to raise soil pH to 6.5, unless otherwise requested.\n\nCEC and nutrient balance calculations assume a target pH of 6.5 (current pH if higher) unless otherwise requested.\n\nAll lime and nutrient source recommendations made on a 1000 sq. ft. basis.\n\nOptimum P range = 20 - 40 pounds P per acre.\n\nOptimum K range = 3.5 - 5.0 % K saturation.\n\n****---------------------------------------------------------****\n\nRECOMMENDED NITROGEN SOURCES: (to supply 2.5 pounds N per 1000 sq. ft.)\n\n50 pounds cottonseed meal per 1000 sq. ft. OR 20 pounds bloodmeal per 1000 sq. ft. OR 25 pounds fishmeal per 1000 sq. ft. (only if P test is not excessive)\n\nReduce these amounts if soil organic matter is optimum or excessive (see Management Statement 6).\n\nPHOSPHORUS REQUIREMENT TABLE:\n\nPounds per acre P (soil test) \u2264 2\n\nP source recommendation\n\n75 pounds of rock phosphate* or 40 pounds bonemeal per 1000 sq. ft.\n\n2-4\n\n4-8\n\n8-22\n\n22-40\n\n40-80 (optional)"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: c8ce085a-3faf-444e-8277-1871160a4422
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "50 pounds cottonseed meal per 1000 sq. ft. OR 20 pounds bloodmeal per 1000 sq. ft. OR 25 pounds fishmeal per 1000 sq. ft. (only if P test is not excessive)\n\nReduce these amounts if soil organic matter is optimum or excessive (see Management Statement 6).\n\nPHOSPHORUS REQUIREMENT TABLE:\n\nPounds per acre P (soil test) \u2264 2\n\nP source recommendation\n\n75 pounds of rock phosphate* or 40 pounds bonemeal per 1000 sq. ft.\n\n2-4\n\n4-8\n\n8-22\n\n22-40\n\n40-80 (optional)\n\n65 pounds of rock phosphate* or 35 pounds bonemeal per 1000 sq. ft. 50 pounds of rock phosphate* or 30 pounds bonemeal per 1000 sq. ft. 25 pounds of rock phosphate* or 10 pounds bonemeal per 1000 sq. ft. 4 pounds bonemeal per 1000 sq. ft. as a starter in early spring. 4 pounds bonemeal per 1000 sq. ft. as a starter in early spring. No P recommended this year.\n\n> 80\n\nIf pH >= 6.5, use bonemeal only. Rock phosphate releases very slowly at high soil pH.\n\nPOTASSIUM REQUIREMENT TABLE:\n\n% K saturation (soil test)\n\nK source recommendation\n\n\u2264 2\n\n1.If no lime or Mg are needed, use 750 pounds greensand per 1000 sq. ft.*\n\n2. If Mg is needed but no lime, use 20 pounds langbeinite (Sul-Po-Mag) per 1000 sq. ft.\n\n3.If both lime and Mg are needed, use 20 pounds langbeinite (Sul-Po-Mag)\n\nor 90 pounds dry unleached wood ash per 1000 sq. ft.\n\n2-4.5%\n\n1. If no lime or Mg are needed, use 500 pounds greensand per 1000 sq. ft.*\n\n2. If Mg is needed but no lime, use 15 pounds langbeinite (Sul-Po-Mag) per 1000 sq. ft.\n\n3. If lime and Mg are both needed, use 15 pounds langbeinite (Sul-Po-Mag) or\n\n70 pounds dry unleached wood ash per 1000 sq. ft.\n\n> 4.5% *Greensand and granite dust release available K at a very slow rate. Application rate listed are those necessary to correct a soil K deficiency in the first year. For a long-term adjustment, use 1/4 - 1/2 the recommended rates.\n\nNo K needed this year.\n\nMAGNESIUM SOURCES:\n\n1. If lime is needed, use a magnesium lime."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 2e312484-237b-4910-b7ab-b0864e33fc30
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "3. If lime and Mg are both needed, use 15 pounds langbeinite (Sul-Po-Mag) or\n\n70 pounds dry unleached wood ash per 1000 sq. ft.\n\n> 4.5% *Greensand and granite dust release available K at a very slow rate. Application rate listed are those necessary to correct a soil K deficiency in the first year. For a long-term adjustment, use 1/4 - 1/2 the recommended rates.\n\nNo K needed this year.\n\nMAGNESIUM SOURCES:\n\n1. If lime is needed, use a magnesium lime.\n\n2. If no lime is needed, but K is needed, use Sul-Po-Mag as a source of both Mg and K.\n\n3. If no lime or K are needed, very few alternative organic sources of Mg are available. Low soil Mg level cannot be corrected economically until either lime or K are needed again.\n\nMANAGEMENT STATEMENTS:\n\n1. When lime is needed, broadcast it uniformly over the soil at the specified rate and till in to a depth of 6-7 inches in spring or fall.\n\n2. Limit lime application rate to 175 pounds per 1000 sq. ft. in any one year. Lime requirement can be met over a period of several years.\n\n3. Most organic N-P-K nutrient sources should be applied in the spring. They may be broadcast overall and tilled in 6 - 7 inches or thoroughly worked into the soil of raised beds or rows.\n\n4. If soil pH exceeds 7.0, apply 15 pounds yellow (elemental)sulfur per 1000 sq. ft. of area to reduce pH to 6.5. Use 30 pounds per 1000 sq. ft. if pH exceeds 7.5. Broadcast sulfur uniformly if needed and till in thoroughly in spring or fall.\n\n5. In general, 15 bushels of cow, hog, or horse manure; or 7 - 8 bushels of poultry, sheep, goat, or rabbit manure per 1000 sq. ft. may be used as a substitute for 1/4 to 1/3 of the recommended N-P-K nutrient additions. Manure use should be curtailed or stopped for a year or more if either soil P or organic matter test levels are excessive."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: f20bbc94-c5b8-43e0-a0b8-e1e679d4671c
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "5. In general, 15 bushels of cow, hog, or horse manure; or 7 - 8 bushels of poultry, sheep, goat, or rabbit manure per 1000 sq. ft. may be used as a substitute for 1/4 to 1/3 of the recommended N-P-K nutrient additions. Manure use should be curtailed or stopped for a year or more if either soil P or organic matter test levels are excessive.\n\n6. Optional nitrogen credit for organic matter level: If organic matter test = 5 - 8 %, the natural breakdown of soil organic matter should supply half or more of the total seasonal nitrogen requirement of most vegetables. If organic matter tested > 8 %, the soil should be able to supply the full seasonal nitrogen requirement of most vegetables. Adjust the recommended application rate of nitrogen sources downward accordingly. These organic matter/nitrogen equivalences assume the regular use of animal manures or compost. These assumptions may not be valid following the heavy use of peat moss, sawdust, or wood chips.\n\n7. If no lime is needed or if potassium is excessive and you are using wood ash, discontinue the use of ash until both lime and potassium are needed again. This will help avoid problems with excessive pH and nutrient imbalances.\n\n8. If both K and lime are needed: wood ash acts as both a liming material and a source of potassium (K). Reduce lime application rate 1.5 pounds for each 1 pound of wood ash used.\n\n9. For potatoes: reserve an area for potatoes and rotate alternate years with sweet corn. Maintain pH in the reserve area at 5.5, lime remaining garden to pH 6.5. If pH is already above 5.5, grow scab-resistant potato varieties such as Norland, Belrus, Waseon, Superior, or any Russet variety.\n\n10. For information on lead contamination of garden soils, see \"Lead Scan\" on p. 16 in the front part of the Handbook.\n\nHOME TREE FRUIT\n\nCrop Code 393\n\nLime recommended to reach a soil pH of 6.0, unless otherwise requested."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 87ed7161-d3ea-4d18-93de-141dd18ad359
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "10. For information on lead contamination of garden soils, see \"Lead Scan\" on p. 16 in the front part of the Handbook.\n\nHOME TREE FRUIT\n\nCrop Code 393\n\nLime recommended to reach a soil pH of 6.0, unless otherwise requested.\n\nCEC and nutrient balance calculated assuming a target pH of 6.0 (current pH if higher) unless otherwise requested.\n\nAll lime and fertilizer recommendations are made on a 1000 sq. ft. basis.\n\nOptimum P range = 9 - 13 pounds P per acre.\n\nOptimum K range = 2.1 - 3.0 % K saturation.\n\n****---------------------------------------------------------****\n\nNitrogen requirement = 1.4 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nP2O5 requirement not calculated for home tree fruit.\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = (3 - % K sat.) * CEC * .215 = pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nMaximum = 6.0 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nMinimum = 1.8 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nRecommend 0 when K saturation exceeds 3%\n\nFERTILIZER OPTIONS:\n\n1. If K2O requirement = 0, apply either 4 pounds 33-0-0 or 3 pounds 46-0-0 fertilizer per 1000 sq. ft.\n\n2. If K2O requirement <= 3.0, apply 15 pounds 15-8-12 or 12 pounds 15-15-15 fertilizer per 1000 sq. ft.\n\n3. If K2O requirement > 3.0 and <= 5.0, apply either 40 pounds 5-10-10 or 20 pounds 10- 20-20 fertilizer per 1000 sq. ft.\n\n4. If K2O requirement > 5.0, apply either 50 pounds 5-10-10 or 25 pounds 10-20-20 fertilizer per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nMANAGEMENT STATEMENTS:\n\n1. Broadcast fertlizer in 4-8 ft. circles around established trees.\n\n2. Apply fertilizer between April 15 and June 1. Later application may cause winter damage.\n\n3. Limit lime topdress on established trees to 100 pounds per 1000 sq. ft. in any one year.\n\n4. When planting new trees, apply lime at the recommended rate and till in thoroughly. Add peat or compost at 1/3 to 1/4 by volume to the soil in the planting hole. Also add the recommended fertilizer at the per plant rate. Mix all materials together thoroughly before planting. Water in well.\n\nCOMMERCIAL FRUIT\n\nCrop Codes 401 to 412\n\nFor all crops:"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 8f618ed5-ff1c-4da2-b433-e1314be0b18c
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "3. Limit lime topdress on established trees to 100 pounds per 1000 sq. ft. in any one year.\n\n4. When planting new trees, apply lime at the recommended rate and till in thoroughly. Add peat or compost at 1/3 to 1/4 by volume to the soil in the planting hole. Also add the recommended fertilizer at the per plant rate. Mix all materials together thoroughly before planting. Water in well.\n\nCOMMERCIAL FRUIT\n\nCrop Codes 401 to 412\n\nFor all crops:\n\nLime recommended to raise soil pH to 6.0, unless otherwise requested or noted below.\n\nCEC and nutrient balance calculations assume a target pH of 6.0 (current pH if higher), unless otherwise requested or noted below.\n\nNutrient requirements rounded to nearest 10 pounds per acre, unless otherwise specified.\n\n****---------------------------------------------------------****\n\nCrop Code 401 - Apples (new plantings only).\n\nNitrogen requirement: see management statements below.\n\nCalc. P2O5 requirement = 1.2 * (50 - no. PX's) = pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 25 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 13 pounds per acre\n\nOptimum range = 9 - 13 pounds P per acre\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = (3 - % K sat.) * CEC * 9.36 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 260 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 80 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when K saturation exceeds 3%\n\nOptimum range = 3.5 - 5.0 % K saturation\n\nIf Ca saturation is less than 60 % and no lime is needed (soil pH >= 5.8):\n\nCalc. calcium requirement = (80 - % Ca sat.) * CEC * 17.40 = pounds per acre gypsum\n\nMANAGEMENT STATEMENTS:\n\n1. Be sure any lime or phosphate fertilizers are thoroughly tilled in before planting.\n\n2. After planting, apply 1 ounce of actual nitrogen per tree after growth begins - between April 15 and June 1. Nitrogen applied after June 1 could lead to excessive winter damage.\n\n3. Applying fertilizer in a 6 to 8 ft. band down the tree rows will reduce grass growth between rows."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 135c842e-0dbd-4945-986e-244e1528a1bb
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Calc. calcium requirement = (80 - % Ca sat.) * CEC * 17.40 = pounds per acre gypsum\n\nMANAGEMENT STATEMENTS:\n\n1. Be sure any lime or phosphate fertilizers are thoroughly tilled in before planting.\n\n2. After planting, apply 1 ounce of actual nitrogen per tree after growth begins - between April 15 and June 1. Nitrogen applied after June 1 could lead to excessive winter damage.\n\n3. Applying fertilizer in a 6 to 8 ft. band down the tree rows will reduce grass growth between rows.\n\n4. For established orchards, use a foliar analysis in combination with a soil analysis to determine nutrient requirements.\n\nCrop Codes 404 - Raspberry (established bed), 405 - Raspberry (new bed), 406 - Strawberry (established bed), 407 - Strawberry (new bed).\n\nNitrogen requirement = 35 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 requirement = 15 + (50 - no. PX's) * 4 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 150 pounds per acre for established beds (crop codes 404 & 406)\n\nMaximum = 200 pounds per acre for new beds (crop codes 405 & 407)\n\nMinimum = 25 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when P tests excessive\n\nOptimum range = 10 - 40 pounds P per acre\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = 40 + (4 - % K sat.) * CEC * 9.36 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 160 pounds per acre for established beds (crop codes 404 & 406)\n\nMaximum = 220 pounds per acre for new beds (crop codes 405 & 407)\n\nMinimum = 40 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when K saturation exceeds 4%\n\nOptimum range = 2.8 - 4.0 % K saturation\n\nMANAGEMENT STATEMENTS:\n\nCrop Code 405: Thoroughly till in all lime and fertilizer before planting.\n\nCrop Code 404: Sidedress brambles as soon as growth begins in the spring. Later applications may increase winter injury. Mulch may be applied to retain soil moisture and inhibit weed growth, though it may delay primocane emergence in the spring."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 823792e0-f791-47bd-98ff-3aad7f706998
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Minimum = 40 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when K saturation exceeds 4%\n\nOptimum range = 2.8 - 4.0 % K saturation\n\nMANAGEMENT STATEMENTS:\n\nCrop Code 405: Thoroughly till in all lime and fertilizer before planting.\n\nCrop Code 404: Sidedress brambles as soon as growth begins in the spring. Later applications may increase winter injury. Mulch may be applied to retain soil moisture and inhibit weed growth, though it may delay primocane emergence in the spring.\n\nCrop Code 407: Till in recommended nutrients before planting. Broadcast 30 pounds additional nitrogen per acre around plants one month after planting. Repeat nitrogen application between August 15-30 to stimulate flower bud formation.\n\nCrop Code 406: Apply fertilizer immediately after harvest or at renovation time. A light application of nitrogen (8 - 10 pounds actual N per acre) in early spring may increase fruit size. Heavier application will cause fruit softening and encourage disease and mite problems.\n\nFor all Crop Codes 404 - 407: To obtain lime and fertilizer rates on a 1000 sq. ft. basis, multiply per acre recommendations by .023.\n\nCrop Code 408 - Stone Fruit.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 40 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 requirement = 1.4 * (50 - no. PX's) = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 70 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 40 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 13 pounds per acre\n\nOptimum range = 9 - 13 pounds P per acre\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = (3 - % K sat.) * CEC * 9.36 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 140 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 40 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when the K saturation exceeds 3 %\n\nOptimum range = 2.1 - 3.0 % K saturation\n\nMANAGEMENT STATEMENTS:\n\nBroadcast fertilizer under trees in a band 6 to 8 ft. wide between April 15 and June 1. To avoid winter injury, do not apply nitrogen after June 1.\n\nLimit lime application to 4000 lbs per acre per year when topdressing established trees.\n\nCrop Codes 409 - Highbush blueberry (new bed), 410 - Highbush blueberry (established bed)."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: d8541016-8aa2-4957-9aef-4518ec7fff84
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Minimum = 40 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when the K saturation exceeds 3 %\n\nOptimum range = 2.1 - 3.0 % K saturation\n\nMANAGEMENT STATEMENTS:\n\nBroadcast fertilizer under trees in a band 6 to 8 ft. wide between April 15 and June 1. To avoid winter injury, do not apply nitrogen after June 1.\n\nLimit lime application to 4000 lbs per acre per year when topdressing established trees.\n\nCrop Codes 409 - Highbush blueberry (new bed), 410 - Highbush blueberry (established bed).\n\nCEC and nutrient balance are calculated at the current soil pH.\n\nNutrient and sulfur recommendations are made on a 1000 sq. ft. basis to the nearest 0.1 pound, unless otherwise specified.\n\nOptimum P range = 9 - 13 pounds P per acre.\n\nOptimum K range = 2.1 - 3.0 % K saturation.\n\nNitrogen requirement: see management statements below.\n\nCalc. P2O5 requirement = (35 - no. PX's) * 0.11 = pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nMaximum = 1.8 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nMinimum = 0.9 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 14 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = (3 - % K sat.) * CEC * .215 = pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nMaximum = 1.8 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nMinimum = 0.9 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nRecommend 0 when K saturation exceeds 3%\n\nCalc. calcium requirement = (25 - % Ca sat.) * CEC * .41 = pounds gypsum per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nRecommend 0 when Ca saturation exceeds 25%\n\nCalc. magnesium requirement = (15 - % Mg sat.) * CEC * .55 = pounds epsom salts (10 % Mg) per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nRecommend 0 when Mg saturation exceeds 15%\n\nSulfur requirement: Highbush blueberries prefer a soil pH between 4.8 and 5.2. Apply elemental (yellow) sulfur at the following rates. If sulfur is not available, use aluminum sulfate (not to be confused with ammonium sulfate) at 6 times the rate recommended for sulfur.\n\nSulfur requirement table:\n\nSoil pH of 5.2-5.4 = 10 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nSoil pH of 5.5-5.7 = 20 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nSoil pH of 5.8-6.0 = 30 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nSoil pH of 6.1-6.5 = 40 pounds per 1000 sq. ft."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: e5bce1cf-bb6c-48a9-a443-3fcfdccd19e1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Sulfur requirement: Highbush blueberries prefer a soil pH between 4.8 and 5.2. Apply elemental (yellow) sulfur at the following rates. If sulfur is not available, use aluminum sulfate (not to be confused with ammonium sulfate) at 6 times the rate recommended for sulfur.\n\nSulfur requirement table:\n\nSoil pH of 5.2-5.4 = 10 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nSoil pH of 5.5-5.7 = 20 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nSoil pH of 5.8-6.0 = 30 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nSoil pH of 6.1-6.5 = 40 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nSoil pH of 6.6-7.0 = 60 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.*\n\nrecommend selection of another location with lower pH.\n\nNotes on sulfur application: The above rates of sulfur are expected to adjust soil pH to the optimum range in an \"average\" soil. Heavy, fine-textured soils may require up to 1.5 times the recommended rate for the desired effect on soil pH. Sandy, coarse-textured soils may need as little as 1/2 the recommended rate for the desired effect. To maximize the reaction rate, be sure the sulfur is well tilled in.\n\nLime requirement: In some rare cases, the soil pH may actually be too low for optimum Highbush blueberry production. In those cases, a small application of lime should be considered. For each 0.2 pH units below pH 4.5, apply 30 pounds of lime per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nLime requirement table\n\nSoil pH of 4.3 - 4.4 = 30 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nSoil pH of 4.1 - 4.2 = 60 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nSoil pH of 3.9 - 4.0 = 90 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nMANAGEMENT STATEMENTS:\n\nCrop Code 409 (new bed):\n\n1. Build up the soil during the summer or fall before planting by broadcasting and incorporating the calculated amounts of sulfur, P2O5, K2O, gypsum, and epsom salts.\n\n2. Approximately three weeks after planting, apply 1 oz. ammonium sulfate per plant in a 15 in. circle. Mulch plants with 4-6 inches of shredded bark, wood chips, or similar material.\n\n3. Use sulfate sources for nitrogen and potash if soil pH is above 4.9."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: f5650f8a-d09f-44db-8a9e-52a719b8e8dc
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "MANAGEMENT STATEMENTS:\n\nCrop Code 409 (new bed):\n\n1. Build up the soil during the summer or fall before planting by broadcasting and incorporating the calculated amounts of sulfur, P2O5, K2O, gypsum, and epsom salts.\n\n2. Approximately three weeks after planting, apply 1 oz. ammonium sulfate per plant in a 15 in. circle. Mulch plants with 4-6 inches of shredded bark, wood chips, or similar material.\n\n3. Use sulfate sources for nitrogen and potash if soil pH is above 4.9.\n\n4. Incorporation of organic matter, such as manure, will improve the early growth of blueberry plants.\n\nCrop Code 410 (established plantings):\n\n1. Broadcast 1/2 the calculated fertilizer needs around the plants at bud break in the spring. Broadcast the second half one month later - at tip dieback. Caution: To avoid excess winter damage, do not apply any fertilizer after July 15.\n\n2. Nitrogen source depends on soil pH. Use ammonium sulfate if the soil pH is above 4.9. More conventional sources, such as urea or a blended fertilizer like 10-10-10, may be used if the soil pH is 4.8 or lower. Application rate is based on plant age as follows:\n\noz. per plant* 10-10-10 2 oz. 4 oz. 6 oz. 8 oz. 10 oz. 12 oz. *Note: Nitrogen application rate should be doubled for heavily mulched plants.\n\noz. per plant* ammonium sulfate 1 oz. 1.5 oz. 2 oz. 3 oz. 4 oz. 4 oz.\n\nyears from planting\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6\n\nCrop Codes 411 - Cranberry (new bog), 412 - Cranberry (established bog).\n\nCEC and nutrient balance are calculated at the current soil pH.\n\nCurrent recommendations are derived from Massachusetts and Wisconsin guidelines and are based only on pounds per acre levels.\n\nOptimum P range = 10 - 20 pounds P per acre.\n\nOptimum K range = 20 - 80 pounds K per acre.\n\nOptimum Mg range = 20 - 50 pounds Mg per acre.\n\nOptimum Ca range = 40 - 150 pounds Ca per acre.\n\nSulfur requirement: Cranberries prefer a soil pH below 5.0. Apply elemental (yellow) sulfur at the following rates:\n\nSulfur requirement table:"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: e3f67fef-6048-4dc0-b735-935683324efe
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Current recommendations are derived from Massachusetts and Wisconsin guidelines and are based only on pounds per acre levels.\n\nOptimum P range = 10 - 20 pounds P per acre.\n\nOptimum K range = 20 - 80 pounds K per acre.\n\nOptimum Mg range = 20 - 50 pounds Mg per acre.\n\nOptimum Ca range = 40 - 150 pounds Ca per acre.\n\nSulfur requirement: Cranberries prefer a soil pH below 5.0. Apply elemental (yellow) sulfur at the following rates:\n\nSulfur requirement table:\n\nSoil pH of 5.0-5.2 = 250 pounds per acre\n\nSoil pH of 5.3-5.5 = 500 pounds per acre\n\nSoil pH of 5.6-5.7 = 750 pounds per acre\n\nSoil pH of 5.8-6.0 = 1000 pounds per acre\n\nSoil pH of 6.1-6.2 = 1250 pounds per acre\n\nSoil pH of 6.3-6.5 = 1500 pounds per acre\n\nSoil pH of 6.6-6.7 = 1750 pounds per acre\n\nSoil pH > 6.7 = 2000 pounds per acre\n\nNotes on sulfur application:\n\nThe above sulfur rates are for a 6 inch layer of sand, not peat or topsoil. Decrease application rates proportionately for a shallower sand layer. Increase application rates by 50 % for topsoil and double the rates for peat or other highly organic soil materials.\n\nApply sulfur only to well-drained, unsaturated soils with no standing water. Saturated soils can produce sulfides, which are toxic to plants.\n\nUse granulated or prilled sulfur and wear a particle mask to avoid breathing dust. Powdered sulfur dust is a health hazard.\n\nCalcium requirement - For new or established bogs with < 40 pounds Ca per acre:\n\nApply 90 - 130 pounds gypsum per acre.\n\nMagnesium requirement - For new or established bogs with < 20 pounds Mg/acre:\n\nIf soil K < 50 pounds per acre, apply 100 - 200 pounds Sul-Po-Mag (11 % Mg)/acre to boost both K and Mg.\n\nIf soil K >= 50 pounds per acre, apply 100 - 300 pounds epsom salts (10 % Mg)/acre.\n\nCrop Code 411 (new bog) Specific Recommendations:\n\nBefore planting new vines, it is important that any adjustments to the pH and phosphorus level of the sand layer be made while tillage is still possible. Pre-plant recommendations are as follows:"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 055e3023-d80f-4d38-b702-ddfb478b954a
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "If soil K < 50 pounds per acre, apply 100 - 200 pounds Sul-Po-Mag (11 % Mg)/acre to boost both K and Mg.\n\nIf soil K >= 50 pounds per acre, apply 100 - 300 pounds epsom salts (10 % Mg)/acre.\n\nCrop Code 411 (new bog) Specific Recommendations:\n\nBefore planting new vines, it is important that any adjustments to the pH and phosphorus level of the sand layer be made while tillage is still possible. Pre-plant recommendations are as follows:\n\nIf soil P < 10 pounds per acre: Apply 100 pounds triple-superphosphate (0-46-0) per acre. Broadcast the full rate of TSP on top of the sand or broadcast 50 pounds per acre before sanding and the remainder on top of the sand before vine disk-in.\n\nMANAGEMENT STATEMENTS:\n\n1. Apply any recommended sulfur, gypsum, or epsom salts and till in at least one month before planting.\n\n2. After planting, apply 5-10 pounds actual nitrogen per acre every 2-3 weeks until mid-August. Alternate applications between urea or ammonium sulfate and a complete N-P-K fertilizer.\n\nCrop Code 412 (established bog) Specific Recommendations:\n\nIf soil P <= 10 pounds per acre and K <= 20 pounds per acre:\n\nApply 200 pounds 5-10-10 or 100 pounds 10-20-20 per acre in May.\n\nIf soil P <= 10 pounds per acre and K > 20 pounds per acre:\n\nApply 200 pounds 5-10-5 or 100 pounds 10-20-10 per acre in May.\n\nIf soil P > 10 pounds per acre and K <= 20 pounds per acre:\n\nApply 100 pounds 10-10-10 or 70 pounds 14-14-14 per acre in May.\n\nIf soil P > 10 pounds per acre and K > 20 pounds per acre:\n\nApply 30 pounds 33-0-0 or 20 pounds 46-0-0 per acre in May.\n\nMANAGEMENT STATEMENTS:\n\n1. Apply an additional 10 pounds nitrogen per acre at bloom and again at fruit set. If vines are short or yellow, additional nitrogen may be applied for a total of up to 40 pounds nitrogen per acre for the entire year."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 5cdf9b8d-b314-4ead-b19f-ebd62f2d74a9
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "If soil P > 10 pounds per acre and K <= 20 pounds per acre:\n\nApply 100 pounds 10-10-10 or 70 pounds 14-14-14 per acre in May.\n\nIf soil P > 10 pounds per acre and K > 20 pounds per acre:\n\nApply 30 pounds 33-0-0 or 20 pounds 46-0-0 per acre in May.\n\nMANAGEMENT STATEMENTS:\n\n1. Apply an additional 10 pounds nitrogen per acre at bloom and again at fruit set. If vines are short or yellow, additional nitrogen may be applied for a total of up to 40 pounds nitrogen per acre for the entire year.\n\n2. Notes on sulfur application to established bogs: Split the sulfur application into several 100-200 pound per acre applications, spaced 4-6 weeks apart. Use a field testing kit to check your pH before each application. There is little economic benefit to applying more than 500 pounds sulfur per acre in any one year on established bogs.\n\nCOMMERCIAL POTATOES\n\nCrop Codes 501 to 531\n\nFor all varieties- processing, seed and table stock:\n\nThree separate lime recommendations are made to raise soil pH to 5.2, 5.5, and 6.0 targets.\n\nCEC and nutrient balance calculations assume a target pH of 6.0 (current pH if higher) unless otherwise requested.\n\nNutrient requirements rounded to nearest 10 pounds per acre.\n\nOptimum P range = 20 - 50 pounds P per acre.\n\nOptimum K range = 4.8 - 7.0 % K saturation (Buildup and Maintenance system).\n\nK Sufficiency level = 450 pounds K per acre.\n\nEarly and Low Nitrogen-demand Varieties (Superior, Kennebec, Atlantic)\n\nCrop Codes 501, 506, 511. For a 300-325 CWT tuber yield.\n\nProcessing and Seed Use\n\nCrop Code 501: after heavy red clover or alfalfa green manure.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 60 to 80 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 requirement = 40 + (50 - no. PX's) * 5 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 240 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 60 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 50 pounds per acre\n\nBuildup and Maintenance Potash Recommendation:\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = 160 + (7 - % K sat.) * CEC * 9.36 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 280 pounds per acre"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 3635f720-33e4-4e23-a941-7f5bb0a9f54e
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Processing and Seed Use\n\nCrop Code 501: after heavy red clover or alfalfa green manure.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 60 to 80 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 requirement = 40 + (50 - no. PX's) * 5 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 240 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 60 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 50 pounds per acre\n\nBuildup and Maintenance Potash Recommendation:\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = 160 + (7 - % K sat.) * CEC * 9.36 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 280 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 50 pounds per acre\n\nSufficiency Level Potash Recommendation\n\nCalc K2O requirement = 450 \u2013 lb/A soil test K = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 280 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 50 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when K test exceeds 600 pounds per acre.\n\nCrop Code 506: after underseeded grains, non-legume green manures, broccoli, or old sod.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 110 to 130 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 and K2O requirement = same as 501\n\nCrop Code 511: after grains (not underseeded with clover) or replanted potatoes.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 120 to 140 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 and K2O requirement = same as 501\n\nMANAGEMENT STATEMENTS:\n\nCrop Codes 501, 506: A credit of 60 lb/A phosphate (P2O5) can be taken after a green manure or clover cover crop is plowed down.\n\nAll Crop Codes (501, 506, 511): For seed potatoes: Reduce nitrogen application rate by 10 % from that recommended above.\n\nFor processing potatoes: Reduce nitrogen application rate by 10 pounds per acre per week, when planting after May 24.\n\nEarly and Low Nitrogen-demand Varieties (Superior, Kennebec, Atlantic)\n\nCrop Codes 516, 526, 529. For a 325-350 CWT tuber yield.\n\nTable Stock\n\nCrop Code 516: after heavy red clover or alfalfa green manure.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 60 to 80 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 requirement = 50 + (50 - no. PX's) * 5 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 240 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 60 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 50 pounds per acre\n\nBuildup and Maintenance Potash Recommendation:"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 25337c2a-e4a3-4e4b-bec4-eb9cae37ee06
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Early and Low Nitrogen-demand Varieties (Superior, Kennebec, Atlantic)\n\nCrop Codes 516, 526, 529. For a 325-350 CWT tuber yield.\n\nTable Stock\n\nCrop Code 516: after heavy red clover or alfalfa green manure.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 60 to 80 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 requirement = 50 + (50 - no. PX's) * 5 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 240 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 60 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 50 pounds per acre\n\nBuildup and Maintenance Potash Recommendation:\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = 180 + (7 - % K sat.) * CEC * 9.36 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 300 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 60 pounds per acre\n\nSufficiency Level Potash Recommendation\n\nCalc K2O requirement = 450 \u2013 lb/A soil test K = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 300 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 60 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when K test exceeds 600 pounds per acre.\n\nCrop Code 526: after underseeded grains, non-legume green manures, broccoli, or old sod.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 110 to130 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 and K2O requirement = same as 516\n\nCrop Code 529: after grains (not underseeded with clover) or replanted potatoes.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 120 to140 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 and K2O requirement = same as 516\n\nMANAGEMENT STATEMENTS:\n\nCrop Code 516, 526: A credit of 60 lb/A phosphate (P2O5) can be taken after a green manure or clover cover crop is plowed down.\n\nMid-Season Varieties and Shepody\n\nCrop Codes 504, 509, 514, For a 300 - 325 CWT tuber yield.\n\nProcessing and Seed Use\n\nCrop Code 504: after heavy red clover or alfalfa green manure.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 80 to 100 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 requirement = 40 + (50 - no. PX's) * 5 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 240 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 60 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 50 pounds per acre\n\nBuildup and Maintenance Potash Recommendation:\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = 160 + (7 - % K sat.) * CEC * 9.36 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 280 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 50 pounds per acre"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: ab619ce2-ac5f-4a15-b3aa-432982db33b9
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Crop Code 504: after heavy red clover or alfalfa green manure.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 80 to 100 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 requirement = 40 + (50 - no. PX's) * 5 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 240 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 60 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 50 pounds per acre\n\nBuildup and Maintenance Potash Recommendation:\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = 160 + (7 - % K sat.) * CEC * 9.36 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 280 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 50 pounds per acre\n\nSufficiency Level Potash Recommendation\n\nCalc K2O requirement = 450 \u2013 lb/A soil test K = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 280 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 50 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when K test exceeds 600 pounds per acre.\n\nCrop Code 509: after underseeded grains, non-legume green manures, broccoli, or old sod.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 130 to 150 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 and K2O requirement = same as 504\n\nCrop Code 514: after grains (not underseeded with clover) or replanted potatoes.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 140 to 160 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 and K2O requirement = same as 504\n\nMANAGEMENT STATEMENTS:\n\nCrop Code 504, 509: A credit of 60 lb/A phosphate (P2O5) can be taken after a green manure or clover cover crop is plowed down.\n\nAll Crop Codes (504, 509, 514): For seed potatoes: Reduce nitrogen application rate by 10 % from that recommended above.\n\nFor processing potatoes: Reduce nitrogen application rate by 10 pounds per acre per week, when planting after May 24.\n\nMid-Season Varieties and Shepody\n\nCrop Codes 519, 520, 521, For a 325 - 350 CWT tuber yield.\n\nTable Stock\n\nCrop Code 519: after heavy red clover or alfalfa green manure.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 80 to 100 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 requirement = 50 + (50 - no. PX's) * 5 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 240 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 60 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 50 pounds per acre\n\nBuildup and Maintenance Potash Recommendation:\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = 180 + (7 - % K sat.) * CEC * 9.36 = pounds per acre"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 336f3969-7fe3-4d85-b986-984e24d537a7
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Crop Codes 519, 520, 521, For a 325 - 350 CWT tuber yield.\n\nTable Stock\n\nCrop Code 519: after heavy red clover or alfalfa green manure.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 80 to 100 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 requirement = 50 + (50 - no. PX's) * 5 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 240 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 60 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 50 pounds per acre\n\nBuildup and Maintenance Potash Recommendation:\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = 180 + (7 - % K sat.) * CEC * 9.36 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 300 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 60 pounds per acre\n\nSufficiency Level Potash Recommendation\n\nCalc K2O requirement = 450 \u2013 lb/A soil test K = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 300 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 60 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when K test exceeds 600 pounds per acre.\n\nCrop Code 520: after underseeded grains, non-legume green manures, broccoli, or old sod.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 130 to150 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 and K2O requirement = same as 519\n\nCrop Code 521: after grains (not underseeded with clover) or replanted potatoes.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 140 to160 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 and K2O requirement = same as 519\n\nMANAGEMENT STATEMENTS:\n\nCrop Code 519, 520: A credit of 60 lb/A phosphate (P2O5) can be taken after a green manure or clover cover crop is plowed down.\n\nRusset Burbank\n\nCrop Codes 502, 507, 512. For a 300-325 CWT tuber yield.\n\nProcessing and Seed Use\n\nCrop Code 502: after heavy red clover or alfalfa green manure.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 110 to 130 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 requirement = 50 + (50 - no. PX's) * 5 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 260 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 60 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 50 pounds per acre\n\nBuildup and Maintenance Potash Recommendation:\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = 180 + (7 - % K sat.) * CEC * 9.36 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 300 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 60 pounds per acre\n\nSufficiency Level Potash Recommendation\n\nCalc K2O requirement = 450 \u2013 lb/A soil test K = pounds per acre"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: f4ce078b-f07c-453d-b7f0-e03b60abdc68
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Calc. P2O5 requirement = 50 + (50 - no. PX's) * 5 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 260 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 60 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 50 pounds per acre\n\nBuildup and Maintenance Potash Recommendation:\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = 180 + (7 - % K sat.) * CEC * 9.36 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 300 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 60 pounds per acre\n\nSufficiency Level Potash Recommendation\n\nCalc K2O requirement = 450 \u2013 lb/A soil test K = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 300 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 60 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when K test exceeds 600 pounds per acre.\n\nCrop Code 507: after underseeded grains, non-legume green manures, broccoli, or old sod.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 160 to 180 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 and K2O requirement = same as 502\n\nCrop Code 512: after grains (not underseeded with clover) or replanted potatoes.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 170 to 190 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 and K2O requirement = same as 502\n\nMANAGEMENT STATEMENTS:\n\nCrop Code 502, 507: A credit of 60 lb/A phosphate (P2O5) can be taken after a green manure or clover cover crop is plowed down.\n\nAll Crop Codes (502, 507, 512): For seed potatoes: Reduce nitrogen application rate by 10 % from that recommended above.\n\nFor processing potatoes: Reduce nitrogen application rate by 10 pounds per acre per week, when planting after May 24.\n\nRusset Burbank\n\nCrop Codes 517, 527, 530. For a 350-400 CWT tuber yield.\n\nTable Stock\n\nCrop Code 517: after heavy red clover or alfalfa green manure.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 110 to 125 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 requirement = 60 + (50 - no. PX's) * 5 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 260 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 80 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 50 pounds per acre\n\nBuildup and Maintenance Potash Recommendation:\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = 200 + (7 - % K sat.) * CEC * 9.36 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 340 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 80 pounds per acre\n\nSufficiency Level Potash Recommendation"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: b8d5d0ab-3ac5-4239-8b5e-ccf408b5d320
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Nitrogen requirement = 110 to 125 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 requirement = 60 + (50 - no. PX's) * 5 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 260 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 80 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 50 pounds per acre\n\nBuildup and Maintenance Potash Recommendation:\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = 200 + (7 - % K sat.) * CEC * 9.36 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 340 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 80 pounds per acre\n\nSufficiency Level Potash Recommendation\n\nCalc K2O requirement = 450 \u2013 lb/A soil test K = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 340 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 80 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when K test exceeds 600 pounds per acre.\n\nCrop Code 527: after underseeded grains, non-legume green manures, broccoli, or old sod.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 160 to 175 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 and K2O requirement = same as 517\n\nCrop Code 530: after grains (not underseeded with clover) or replanted potatoes.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 170 to 185 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 and K2O requirement = same as 517\n\nMANAGEMENT STATEMENTS:\n\nCrop Code 517, 527: A credit of 60 lb/A phosphate (P2O5) can be taken after a green manure or clover cover crop is plowed down.\n\nLate maturing varieties\n\nCrop Codes 503, 508, 513. For a 300-325 CWT tuber yield.\n\nProcessing and Seed Use\n\nCrop Code 503: after heavy red clover or alfalfa green manure.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 100 to 120 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 requirement = 50 + (50 - no. PX's) * 5 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 260 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 60 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 50 pounds per acre\n\nBuildup and Maintenance Potash Recommendation:\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = 180 + (7 - % K sat.) * CEC * 9.36 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 320 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 60 pounds per acre\n\nSufficiency Level Potash Recommendation\n\nCalc K2O requirement = 450 \u2013 lb/A soil test K = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 320 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 60 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when K test exceeds 600 pounds per acre."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: b74d9cc9-9bfa-48f1-8f30-d8b4a5da52ad
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Minimum = 60 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 50 pounds per acre\n\nBuildup and Maintenance Potash Recommendation:\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = 180 + (7 - % K sat.) * CEC * 9.36 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 320 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 60 pounds per acre\n\nSufficiency Level Potash Recommendation\n\nCalc K2O requirement = 450 \u2013 lb/A soil test K = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 320 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 60 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when K test exceeds 600 pounds per acre.\n\nCrop Code 508: after underseeded grains, non-legume green manures, broccoli, or old sod.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 150 to 170 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 and K2O requirement = same as 503\n\nCrop Code 513: after grains (not underseeded with clover) or replanted potatoes.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 160 to 180 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 and K2O requirement = same as 503\n\nMANAGEMENT STATEMENTS:\n\nCrop Code 503, 508: A credit of 60 lb/A phosphate (P2O5) can be taken after a green manure or clover cover crop is plowed down.\n\nAll Crop Codes (503, 508, 513): For seed potatoes: Reduce nitrogen application rate by 10 % from that recommended above.\n\nFor processing potatoes: Reduce nitrogen application rate by 10 pounds per acre per week, when planting after May 24.\n\nLate maturing varieties\n\nCrop Codes 518, 528, 531. For a 350-400 CWT tuber yield.\n\nTable Stock\n\nCrop Code 518: after heavy red clover or alfalfa green manure.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 100 to120 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 requirement = 60 + (50 - no. PX's) * 5 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 260 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 80 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 50 pounds per acre\n\nBuildup and Maintenance Potash Recommendation:\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = 200 + (7 - % K sat.) * CEC * 9.36 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 340 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 80 pounds per acre\n\nSufficiency Level Potash Recommendation\n\nCalc K2O requirement = 450 \u2013 lb/A soil test K = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 340 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 80 pounds per acre"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 82651aa8-aae5-4c83-8068-90ef455eac8c
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Maximum = 260 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 80 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 50 pounds per acre\n\nBuildup and Maintenance Potash Recommendation:\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = 200 + (7 - % K sat.) * CEC * 9.36 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 340 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 80 pounds per acre\n\nSufficiency Level Potash Recommendation\n\nCalc K2O requirement = 450 \u2013 lb/A soil test K = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 340 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 80 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when K test exceeds 600 pounds per acre.\n\nCrop Code 528: after underseeded grains, non-legume green manures, broccoli, or old sod.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 150 to 170 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 and K2O requirement = same as 518\n\nCrop Code 531: after grains (not underseeded with clover) or replanted potatoes.\n\nNitrogen requirement = 160 to 180 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 and K2O requirement = same as 518\n\nMANAGEMENT STATEMENTS:\n\nCrop Code 518, 528: A credit of 60 lb/A phosphate (P2O5) can be taken after a green manure or clover cover crop is plowed down.\n\nADDITIONAL MANAGEMENT STATEMENTS:\n\nIncreased potash application can reduce black spot bruise in susceptible varieties. But, on average, an increase of 100 lb K2O/acre results in a 3 pt. decline in specific gravity.\n\nIf the K2O requirement exceeds 180 pounds per acre, broadcast (preplant) any K2O in excess of 180 pounds to minimize seed piece damage.\n\nIf soil Mg saturation < 20 %, use a fertilizer containing magnesium to help maintain optimum nutrient balance.\n\nBoron recommendations (all codes):\n\nIf boron test < 0.6 ppm: Apply \u00bd pound actual boron per acre in the fertilizer blend OR by foliar sprays: spray \u00bc lb actual boron/A in early season, \u00bc lb/A again before mid-season.\n\nIf boron test = 0.6 \u2013 1.2 ppm: Soil boron level is sufficient. To avoid possible toxicity (decreased top growth, tuber set, and yield), apply no additional boron."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 749f3449-d17e-46cc-ae3a-34ce2990e22e
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "If soil Mg saturation < 20 %, use a fertilizer containing magnesium to help maintain optimum nutrient balance.\n\nBoron recommendations (all codes):\n\nIf boron test < 0.6 ppm: Apply \u00bd pound actual boron per acre in the fertilizer blend OR by foliar sprays: spray \u00bc lb actual boron/A in early season, \u00bc lb/A again before mid-season.\n\nIf boron test = 0.6 \u2013 1.2 ppm: Soil boron level is sufficient. To avoid possible toxicity (decreased top growth, tuber set, and yield), apply no additional boron.\n\nIf boron test > 1.2 ppm: Soil boron level is excessive. To avoid possible toxicity (decreased top growth, tuber set, and yield), apply no additional boron.\n\nZinc recommendations (all crop codes):\n\nIf zinc test < 1.0 ppm: Broadcast 4 - 5 pounds actual zinc per acre in a fertilizer blend (or spray 12 pounds zinc sulfate per acre) and till in before planting. Retest zinc level before applying more in subsequent years.\n\nIf zinc test = 1.0 - 2.0 ppm: Soil zinc level is adequate to support any reasonable crop yield. There is very little probability of a yield response from additional zinc.\n\nIf zinc test > 2.0 ppm: Soil zinc level is excessive. Further application of zinc may result in plant toxicity and yield loss.\n\nFORESTRY\n\nCrop Codes 601 to 604\n\nFor all crops:\n\nLime is recommended to raise soil pH to 5.5 and 6.0, unless otherwise requested.\n\nCEC and nutrient balance calculations assume a target pH of 6.0 (current pH if higher) unless otherwise requested.\n\nNutrient requirements rounded to nearest 10 pounds per acre or nearest 0.1 pound per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nOptimum P range = 9 - 13 pounds P per acre.\n\nOptimum K range = 2.1 - 3.0 % K saturation."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: a07f159e-1648-4d36-ae78-58a3977d6051
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "FORESTRY\n\nCrop Codes 601 to 604\n\nFor all crops:\n\nLime is recommended to raise soil pH to 5.5 and 6.0, unless otherwise requested.\n\nCEC and nutrient balance calculations assume a target pH of 6.0 (current pH if higher) unless otherwise requested.\n\nNutrient requirements rounded to nearest 10 pounds per acre or nearest 0.1 pound per 1000 sq. ft.\n\nOptimum P range = 9 - 13 pounds P per acre.\n\nOptimum K range = 2.1 - 3.0 % K saturation.\n\n** Note: The procedures and interpretations used in the Standard Soil Testing System are not meant to be used on \"true\" forest soils. The Forestry crop codes assume tree growth to be on presently or formerly tilled field soils. Forest soils which have never been cultivated should be analyzed using the Forest Soil Protocols, which provide a more thorough characterization of both organic and mineral horizons.\n\n****--------------------------------------------------------****\n\nCrop Codes 601 (general forestry), 602 (Christmas trees).\n\nNitrogen requirement = 100 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. P2O5 requirement = 2 * (50 - no. PX's) = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 100 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 40 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when P test exceeds 13 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = (3 - % K sat.) * CEC * 9.36 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 100 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 40 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when K saturation exceeds 3 %\n\nCrop Code 603 (forest tree nursery).\n\nSame recommendations as 601 and 602 above, except on a 1000 sq. ft. basis.\n\nMANAGEMENT STATEMENTS\n\nCrop Code 602 (Christmas trees): To minimize weed competition, restrict fertilizer application to a 3-foot band down tree rows."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 6487c096-5bbb-4b2d-bbc8-446af6604856
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Recommend 0 when P test exceeds 13 pounds per acre\n\nCalc. K2O requirement = (3 - % K sat.) * CEC * 9.36 = pounds per acre\n\nMaximum = 100 pounds per acre\n\nMinimum = 40 pounds per acre\n\nRecommend 0 when K saturation exceeds 3 %\n\nCrop Code 603 (forest tree nursery).\n\nSame recommendations as 601 and 602 above, except on a 1000 sq. ft. basis.\n\nMANAGEMENT STATEMENTS\n\nCrop Code 602 (Christmas trees): To minimize weed competition, restrict fertilizer application to a 3-foot band down tree rows.\n\nOff-color (yellow) foliage is commonly caused either by a nitrogen deficiency or by a high pH-induced manganese deficiency. Frazer fir seems especially prone to manganese deficiency. A target pH of 5.5 is recommended for Frazer fir, a 6.0 target pH for Balsam fir. If trees lack greenness, acidify if pH exceeds 6.0 and/or apply an additional 50 pounds nitrogen per acre.\n\nFull N, P2O5, and K2O recommendations are for established plantings of Christmas trees. To prepare soil before planting, apply only lime and phosphate fertilizer (P2O5) when recommended and till in thoroughly. Nitrogen and potash (K2O) are best applied as a topdress after trees have developed a well established root system (1 to 2 years after planting).\n\nCrop Codes 601 - 603 (all): If lime is to be tilled in, apply full rate recommended. If applied as a topdress, no economic advantage is gained from apply more than 1/4 the full recommended rate in any one year.\n\nORNAMENTALS\n\nCrop Codes 701 to 707\n\nFor all crops:\n\nAll lime and fertilizer recommendations are made on a 100 sq. ft. basis.\n\n****---------------------------------------------------------****\n\nCrop Code 701 - Annuals: flower beds, cut flowers.\n\nLime recommended to raise soil pH to 6.5, unless otherwise requested.\n\nCEC and nutrient balance calculations assume a target pH of 6.5 (current pH if higher), unless otherwise requested.\n\nOptimum P range = 20 - 40 pounds P per acre.\n\nOptimum K range = 3.5 - 5.0 % K saturation.\n\nFERTILIZER OPTIONS:"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 26acbf93-9f4a-474c-8394-1a42b8eab15a
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "All lime and fertilizer recommendations are made on a 100 sq. ft. basis.\n\n****---------------------------------------------------------****\n\nCrop Code 701 - Annuals: flower beds, cut flowers.\n\nLime recommended to raise soil pH to 6.5, unless otherwise requested.\n\nCEC and nutrient balance calculations assume a target pH of 6.5 (current pH if higher), unless otherwise requested.\n\nOptimum P range = 20 - 40 pounds P per acre.\n\nOptimum K range = 3.5 - 5.0 % K saturation.\n\nFERTILIZER OPTIONS:\n\n1. If P test < 5 pounds per acre and % K saturation < 2.5 %, apply 3-4 pounds of 5-10-10 or 1.5-2 pounds of 10-20-20 fertilizer per 100 sq. ft. of area.\n\n2. If P test >= 5 pounds per acre and % K saturation >= 2.5 %, apply 1.5 pounds of 10- 10-10 or 1 pound of 15-15-15 fertilizer per 100 sq. ft. of area.\n\n3. If P test >= 5 pounds per acre and % K saturation < 2.5 %, apply 1.25 pounds of 15-8- 12 fertilizer per 100 sq. ft. of area.\n\n4. If P test < 5 pounds per acre and % K saturation >= 2.5 %, apply 3-4 pounds of 5-10-5 or 1.5 pounds of 10-20-10 fertilizer per 100 sq. ft. of area.\n\n5. If P test > 40 pounds per acre and % K saturation > 5 %, broadcast 3/4 pound of 20-4-4 fertilizer, or 1/2 pound of ammonium nitrate (33-0-0), or 1/3 pound of urea (46-0-0) per 100 sq. ft. of area in early spring.\n\nMANAGEMENT STATEMENTS:\n\n1. If lime is needed, broadcast uniformly at the recommended rate and work in with the fertilizer.\n\n2. Except for no. 5 (above), till fertilizer to a depth of 2-4 inches in early spring.\n\n3. In all cases, if the recommended fertilizer blend is unavailable, a fertilizer of similar N- P2O5-K2O ratio may be substituted if the application rate is adjusted to match the nitrogen requirement.\n\n4. For cut flowers: at planting, apply 1/2 the recommended fertilizer 2 inches below and 2 inches beside rows. Sidedress the remaining fertilizer just before rapid growth begins."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: c576998e-d37c-4534-b2cc-0aae5fe00d6b
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "2. Except for no. 5 (above), till fertilizer to a depth of 2-4 inches in early spring.\n\n3. In all cases, if the recommended fertilizer blend is unavailable, a fertilizer of similar N- P2O5-K2O ratio may be substituted if the application rate is adjusted to match the nitrogen requirement.\n\n4. For cut flowers: at planting, apply 1/2 the recommended fertilizer 2 inches below and 2 inches beside rows. Sidedress the remaining fertilizer just before rapid growth begins.\n\n5. If soil pH exceeds 7.0: to lower soil pH to 6.5, apply 2 pounds elemental sulfur or 9 pounds aluminum sulfate per 100 sq. ft. and till in thoroughly.\n\n6. If soil pH exceeds 7.5: to lower soil pH to 6.5, apply 3 pounds elemental sulfur or 18 pounds aluminum sulfate per 100 sq. ft. and till in thoroughly.\n\nCrop Code 702 - Roses and other Perennials.\n\nLime recommended to raise soil pH to 6.5, unless otherwise requested.\n\nCEC and nutrient balance calculations assume a target pH of 6.5 (current pH if higher), unless otherwise requested.\n\nOptimum P range = 20 - 40 pounds P per acre.\n\nOptimum K range = 3.5 - 5.0 % K saturation.\n\nFERTILIZER OPTIONS:\n\n1. If P test < 5 pounds per acre and % K saturation < 2.5 %, apply 3 pounds 5-10-10 fertilizer per 100 sq. ft. (5 ounces per plant)or 1.5 pounds 10-20-20 fertilizer per 100 sq. ft. (2-3 ounces per plant).\n\n2. If P test < 5 pounds per acre and % K saturation >= 2.5 %, apply 3-4 pounds of 5-10-5 fertilizer per 100 sq. ft.(5-6 ounces per plant).\n\n3. If P test >= 5 pounds per acre and % K saturation >= 2.5 %, apply 1.5 pounds 10-10-10 fertilizer per 100 sq. ft. (2-3 ounces per plant)or 1 pound 15-15-15 fertilizer per 100 sq. ft. (2 ounces per plant).\n\n4. If P test >= 5 pounds per acre and % K saturation < 2.5 %, apply 1 pound 15-8-12 fertilizer per 100 sq. ft.(2 ounces per plant)."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: d0fd78f8-0d83-4e88-9de8-27772eafbd3a
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "2. If P test < 5 pounds per acre and % K saturation >= 2.5 %, apply 3-4 pounds of 5-10-5 fertilizer per 100 sq. ft.(5-6 ounces per plant).\n\n3. If P test >= 5 pounds per acre and % K saturation >= 2.5 %, apply 1.5 pounds 10-10-10 fertilizer per 100 sq. ft. (2-3 ounces per plant)or 1 pound 15-15-15 fertilizer per 100 sq. ft. (2 ounces per plant).\n\n4. If P test >= 5 pounds per acre and % K saturation < 2.5 %, apply 1 pound 15-8-12 fertilizer per 100 sq. ft.(2 ounces per plant).\n\n5. If P test exceeds 40 pounds per acre and % K saturation exceeds 5 %, apply 3/4 pound 20-4-4 fertilizer per 100 sq. ft. (1 ounce per plant). As an alternative, use 1/2 pound of ammonium nitrate (33-0-0)or 1/3 pound of urea (46-0-0) per 100 sq. ft.\n\nMANAGEMENT STATEMENTS:\n\n1. For best results, apply fertilizer in 2 ft. diameter circles around plants and work lightly into the soil. Use 1/3 more per plant than is listed above for large bushes.\n\n2. Apply fertilizer at recommended rate in early spring. Repeat at 1/2 rate in mid-July.\n\n3. If lime is needed, apply at the recommended rate and work in with fertilizer in early spring.\n\n4. If soil pH exceeds 7.0: to lower soil pH to 6.5, apply 2 pounds elemental sulfur or 9 pounds aluminum sulfate per 100 sq. ft. and work in as much as possible.\n\n5. If soil pH exceeds 7.5: to lower soil pH to 6.5, apply 3 pounds elemental sulfur or 18 pounds aluminum sulfate per 100 sq. ft. and work in as much as possible.\n\nCrop Code 704 - Azalea, Rhododendron, other acid loving plants.\n\nCEC and nutrient balance calculated at current soil pH.\n\nOptimum P range = 9 - 13 pounds P per acre.\n\nOptimum K range = 3.5 - 5.0 % K saturation.\n\nSULFUR REQUIREMENT: (to lower soil pH below 5.4)\n\n(soil pH - 5.4) * 10 = pounds aluminum sulfate per 100 sq. ft.\n\nFERTILIZER OPTIONS: (P test not considered)"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 44c0dd1c-d5a9-4a44-b186-0ca60a388734
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Crop Code 704 - Azalea, Rhododendron, other acid loving plants.\n\nCEC and nutrient balance calculated at current soil pH.\n\nOptimum P range = 9 - 13 pounds P per acre.\n\nOptimum K range = 3.5 - 5.0 % K saturation.\n\nSULFUR REQUIREMENT: (to lower soil pH below 5.4)\n\n(soil pH - 5.4) * 10 = pounds aluminum sulfate per 100 sq. ft.\n\nFERTILIZER OPTIONS: (P test not considered)\n\n1. If % K saturation < 2 %, apply 3 pounds of 5-10-10 fertilizer per 100 sq. ft. of area (about 1 cup for an average 3 ft. plant). Broadcast in 4 ft. diameter circles around plants in early spring.\n\n2. If % K saturation = 2-3.4 %, apply 2.5 pounds of 5-10-10 fertilizer per 100 sq. ft. of area (about 2/3 cup for an average 3 ft. plant). Broadcast in 4 ft. diameter circles around plants in early spring.\n\n3. If % K saturation = 3.5-4.9 %, apply 2 pounds of 5-10-10 fertilizer per 100 sq. ft. of area (about 1/2 cup for an average 3 ft. plant). Broadcast in 4 ft. diameter circles around plants in early spring.\n\n4. If % K saturation >= 5 %, apply 1/3 pound of ammonium sulfate (41-0-0) per 100 sq. ft. of area. Broadcast uniformly in early spring.\n\nCrop Code 705 - Other shrubs.\n\nLime recommended to raise soil pH to 6.0, unless otherwise requested.\n\nCEC and nutrient balance calculations assume a target pH of 6.0 (current pH if higher), unless otherwise requested.\n\nOptimum P range = 9 - 13 pounds P per acre.\n\nOptimum K range = 3.5 - 5.0 % K saturation.\n\nFERTILIZER OPTIONS: (P test not considered)\n\n1. If % K saturation < 2.5 %, broadcast 3 pounds 5-10-10 fertilizer per 100 sq. ft. of area (1 cup for an average 3 ft. plant)in early spring.\n\n2. If % K saturation = 2.5-4.9 %, broadcast 1.5 pounds 10-10-10 fertilizer per 100 sq. ft. of area (1/2 cup for an average 3 ft. plant) in early spring.\n\n3. If % K saturation >= 5 %, broadcast 1/2 pound of ammonium nitrate (33-0-0) or 1/2 pound of urea (46-0-0) per 100 sq. ft. of area in early spring.\n\nCrop Code 706 - Shade trees (deciduous)."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: e254ac3e-9901-4233-abdb-08156922e738
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "1. If % K saturation < 2.5 %, broadcast 3 pounds 5-10-10 fertilizer per 100 sq. ft. of area (1 cup for an average 3 ft. plant)in early spring.\n\n2. If % K saturation = 2.5-4.9 %, broadcast 1.5 pounds 10-10-10 fertilizer per 100 sq. ft. of area (1/2 cup for an average 3 ft. plant) in early spring.\n\n3. If % K saturation >= 5 %, broadcast 1/2 pound of ammonium nitrate (33-0-0) or 1/2 pound of urea (46-0-0) per 100 sq. ft. of area in early spring.\n\nCrop Code 706 - Shade trees (deciduous).\n\nLime recommended to raise soil pH to 6.0, unless otherwise requested.\n\nCEC and nutrient balance calculations assume a target pH of 6.0 (current pH if higher), unless otherwise requested.\n\nOptimum P range = 9 - 13 pounds P per acre.\n\nOptimum K range = 2.1 - 3.0 % K saturation.\n\nFERTILIZER OPTIONS:\n\n1. If P test < 5 pounds per acre and % K saturation < 2.5 %, apply 4 pounds of 5-10-10 fertilizer per inch of trunk diameter. Use 10 auger holes 12-18 inches deep per inch of trunk diameter. Space holes uniformly within drip line area and apply 6-7 ounces per hole.\n\n2. If P test < 5 pounds per acre and % K saturation >= 2.5 %, apply 4 pounds of 5-10-5 fertilizer per inch of trunk diameter. Use 10 auger holes 12-18 inches deep per inch of trunk diameter. Space holes uniformly within drip line area and apply 6-7 ounces per hole.\n\n3. If P test >= 5 pounds per acre and % K saturation < 2.5 %, apply 1 pound of 15-8-12 fertilizer per inch of trunk diameter. Use 10 auger holes 12-18 inches deep per inch of trunk diameter. Space holes uniformly within drip line area and apply 1-2 ounces per hole.\n\n4. If P test >= 5 pounds per acre and % K saturation >= 2.5 %, broadcast 1/2 pound of ammonium nitrate (33-0-0) or 1/3 pound of urea (46-0-0) per 100 sq. ft. of area within drip line of trees.\n\nCrop Code 707 - Shade trees (evergreens).\n\nLime recommended to raise soil pH to 5.5, unless otherwise requested."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 938b3aeb-b375-4653-8398-7aa1ea0254bd
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "4. If P test >= 5 pounds per acre and % K saturation >= 2.5 %, broadcast 1/2 pound of ammonium nitrate (33-0-0) or 1/3 pound of urea (46-0-0) per 100 sq. ft. of area within drip line of trees.\n\nCrop Code 707 - Shade trees (evergreens).\n\nLime recommended to raise soil pH to 5.5, unless otherwise requested.\n\nCEC and nutrient balance calculations assume a target pH of 5.5 (current pH if higher), unless otherwise requested.\n\nOptimum P range = 9 - 13 pounds P per acre.\n\nOptimum K range = 2.1 - 3.0 % K saturation.\n\nFERTILIZER OPTIONS: (P test not considered)\n\n1. If % K saturation < 2.5 %, apply 2 pounds of 5-10-10 fertilizer per inch of trunk diameter in spring. Place fertilizer in auger holes 6-12 inches deep within drip line of tree, using 10 holes per inch of trunk diameter and about 3 ounces of fertilizer per hole.\n\n2. If % K saturation >= 2.5 %, no fertilizer is recommended.\n\nCrop Codes 704 - 707: All shrubs and shade trees.\n\nMANAGEMENT STATEMENT:\n\nWhen planting a new tree or shrub: Apply lime (or sulfur) at the recommended rate and till in thoroughly before opening a planting hole. After the hole is dug, mix in peat moss or compost at 1/3 to 1/4 by volume with the soil from the hole. Also mix in any recommended fertilizer at the per plant rate. Mix all materials together thoroughly before backfilling around the roots. Water in very thoroughly. Be sure the plant receives adequate water the first year.\n\nMAINE SOIL TESTING SERVICE\n\nStandard Soil Testing Procedures\n\nWith the exception of the Cation Equilibration procedure, all these methods can also be found in the Northeast Regional publication \"Recommended Soil Testing Procedures for the Northeastern United States\", 2nd edition. 1995. University of Delaware Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin # 493."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 291c391a-72c9-477f-b788-8d1b481297b6
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "MAINE SOIL TESTING SERVICE\n\nStandard Soil Testing Procedures\n\nWith the exception of the Cation Equilibration procedure, all these methods can also be found in the Northeast Regional publication \"Recommended Soil Testing Procedures for the Northeastern United States\", 2nd edition. 1995. University of Delaware Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin # 493.\n\nNote: For all procedures, soil should be air dried, crushed, and passed through a standard no.10 (2 mm) sieve. Heat drying of soils (above 35 C) can result in the fixation of a significant portion of available K and Mg in non-extractable forms, resulting in an artificially low test level for these two nutrients. All samples should be thoroughly homogenized before subsampling for each analysis. Sieved soil samples tend to segregate by particle size as storage racks are moved and samples are processed.\n\nQuality Control/Quality Assessment:\n\nAn in-house reference soil is included in the sample stream every 25 samples and is run for all analyses. Results for each reference soil should agree within 2 standard deviations of the cumulative mean value for each test parameter. Any results outside of 3 standard deviations from the cumulative mean value will result in the rerun of the associated group of samples for that parameter. Any two occurrences in a row between 2 and 3 standard deviations from the cumulative mean value will also result in the rerun of the associated group of samples for that parameter.\n\nThe Maine Soil Testing Service/Analytical Lab is also enrolled in the North American Proficiency Testing Program (NAPT). In this program, the accuracy of all routine soil and plant testing methods are evaluated quarterly.\n\nSoil pH (water)\n\n1) Weigh 5 (+/- 0.02) gm soil into a paper portion cup.\n\n2) Add 5 (+/- 0.2) ml distilled water, stir, let sit 30 min. Measure pH to nearest 0.1 units using single junction pH and reference electrodes and pH meter."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 974ecc71-46c7-451d-a06a-d18e1be56896
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "The Maine Soil Testing Service/Analytical Lab is also enrolled in the North American Proficiency Testing Program (NAPT). In this program, the accuracy of all routine soil and plant testing methods are evaluated quarterly.\n\nSoil pH (water)\n\n1) Weigh 5 (+/- 0.02) gm soil into a paper portion cup.\n\n2) Add 5 (+/- 0.2) ml distilled water, stir, let sit 30 min. Measure pH to nearest 0.1 units using single junction pH and reference electrodes and pH meter.\n\nNote: Calibrate apparatus with pH 4.0 & 7.0 buffers. Calibration should be verified, at a minimum, every 60 samples.\n\nMehlich Buffer pH/Lime index\n\n1) To water/soil mix, from water pH procedure, add 5 (+/- 0.2) ml Mehlich buffer solution, stir, let sit 15 min.\n\n2) Stir at 15 min., let sit an additional 15 min.\n\n3) Stir after 15 min., (30 min. total contact time). Immediately measure pH to nearest 0.01 units with calibrated electrode/meter apparatus used in water pH procedure.\n\nNote: buffer pH should be measured after 30 minutes minimum contact time while under agitation. Calibration should be verified every 36 samples.\n\nMehlich Buffer solution (2 liter total volume)\n\nadd to about 1 liter distilled or deionized water:\n\n5.0 ml glacial acetic acid (concentrated)\n\n20 ml 50 % triethanolamine\n\n36.0 gm sodium glycerophosphate\n\n86.0 gm ammonium chloride (NH4Cl)\n\n24.0 gm calcium chloride (CaCl2.2H2O)\n\nDilute to 2 liters.\n\nStir until all salts are dissolved (less than 30 min).\n\nAdjust to pH 6.46 (+/- 0.04) as made or pH 6.60 (+/- 0.04) when diluted 1:1 with distilled water. Use triethanolamine to raise pH or acetic acid to lower pH.\n\nMake fresh only what will be needed each week, to prevent microbial growth in storage. Disinfect all containers and dispensors with dilute chlorine bleach (sodium hypochlorite) between batches of solution. Rinse very well with distilled or deionized water.\n\nOrganic Matter (loss on ignition)\n\n1) Weigh crucible and record. Add 5 - 10 gm soil and place in 110 C drying oven for a minimum of 2 hr."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: ce96f206-670c-4f3a-9c39-c5c726f017ca
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "Make fresh only what will be needed each week, to prevent microbial growth in storage. Disinfect all containers and dispensors with dilute chlorine bleach (sodium hypochlorite) between batches of solution. Rinse very well with distilled or deionized water.\n\nOrganic Matter (loss on ignition)\n\n1) Weigh crucible and record. Add 5 - 10 gm soil and place in 110 C drying oven for a minimum of 2 hr.\n\n2) Remove from oven and weigh as soon as it can be handled (while still warm) and record. Place in muffle furnace. Heat to 375 C and maintain temperature for 2 hr.\n\n3) Remove, weigh crucible as soon as it can be handled (while still warm), and record.\n\nNote: it is important that air-dried soils be oven-dried before ignition, since air-dried soils retain 1 - 4 % moisture depending on texture. If crucibles cannot be weighed while still warm, place them in a desiccator to avoid re-adsorption of moisture from the atmosphere.\n\nConvert loss on ignition to Walkley-Black equivalent organic matter using the following regression equation:\n\nOrganic matter = 1.04 x % LOI - 1.0\n\nModified Morgan Nutrient Extraction\n\n1) Fill a standard 5 cc scoop heaping full, tap the scoop handle to settle, and strike off the excess, level with the top of the scoop. Weigh and record the scoop contents and empty into a 50 ml flask in shaker rack.\n\n2) Add 20 (+/-0.2) ml pH 4.8 ammonium acetate (Modified Morgan) solution.\n\n3) Shake on a platform shaker at 180 oscillation/min for 15 min.\n\n4) Filter immediately through fast filter paper (Whatman 2 or equivalent).\n\n5) Analyze filtrate for Ca, K, Mg, P, Na, Pb, Zn by plasma emission.\n\nModified Morgan Extraction solution (40 liter total volume)\n\nadd to about 20 liters distilled or deionized water:\n\n2875 ml concentrated glacial acetic acid\n\n1825 ml concentrated ammonium hydroxide\n\nDilute to 40 liters total volume and mix thoroughly.\n\nAdjust pH to 4.8 (+/- 0.05) with acetic acid or ammonium hydroxide.\n\nCation Equilibration"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: ca8611fd-9b08-4736-a3c6-a4eb00a9a4f0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\handbook.pdf", "chroma:document": "4) Filter immediately through fast filter paper (Whatman 2 or equivalent).\n\n5) Analyze filtrate for Ca, K, Mg, P, Na, Pb, Zn by plasma emission.\n\nModified Morgan Extraction solution (40 liter total volume)\n\nadd to about 20 liters distilled or deionized water:\n\n2875 ml concentrated glacial acetic acid\n\n1825 ml concentrated ammonium hydroxide\n\nDilute to 40 liters total volume and mix thoroughly.\n\nAdjust pH to 4.8 (+/- 0.05) with acetic acid or ammonium hydroxide.\n\nCation Equilibration\n\n1) Weigh 2 (+/-0.02) gm soil into 50 ml flask in shaker rack.\n\n2) Add 20 (+/- 0.2) ml equilibration solution.\n\n3) Shake for 15 min. on a platform shaker at 180 oscillation/min for 15 min.\n\n4) Filter through fast filter paper, (Whatman 2 or equivalent).\n\n5) Analyze filtrate for Ca, K, Mg, P, and Ba by plasma emission.\n\nEquilibration Solution\n\n0.35 mM KCl\n\n5.00 mM CaCl2.2H2O\n\n1. mM MgCl2.6H2O\n\n0.30 mM BaCl2.2H2O\n\nEffective CEC (estimated) = 0.00048 x adBa**3 - 0.012 x adBa**2 + 0.244 x adBa\n\nwhere adBa = ug Ba adsorbed/100 mg soil\n\nThis is an internally developed procedure used as an auxiliary CEC estimate on high pH soils and as a general index of cation activity. For information on similar procedures, see:\n\n\"Baker Small Exchange Method\", p. 100-111. IN Handbook on Reference Methods for Soil Testing. 1980. Council on Soil Testing & Plant Analysis.\n\n\"CEC of Acid Soils\", p. 154-157. IN Methods of Soil Analysis, Agronomy no. 9, part 2, second edition. 1982. American Society of Agronomy."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 7a814548-74e9-42cd-980c-c29145351d7e
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\pharma_innovation_akola_paper.pdf", "chroma:document": "ISSN (E): 2277-7695 ISSN (P): 2349-8242 NAAS Rating: 5.23 TPI 2023; 12(2): 1690-1694 \u00a9 2023 TPI www.thepharmajournal.com Received: 01-11-2022 Accepted: 04-12-2022\n\nPN Magare Agriculture Research Station, Achalpur, Amravati, Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola, Maharashtra, India\n\nYD Charjan Agriculture Research Station, Achalpur, Amravati, Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola, Maharashtra, India\n\nRS Wankhade Agriculture Research Station, Achalpur, Amravati, Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola, Maharashtra, India\n\nAS Lawhale Agriculture Research Station, Achalpur, Amravati, Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola, Maharashtra, India\n\nCorresponding Author: PN Magare Agriculture Research Station, Achalpur, Amravati, Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola, Maharashtra, India\n\nThe Pharma Innovation Journal 2023; 12(2): 1690-1694\n\nAssessment of nutrients and heavy metal status in soils of Akola, Maharashtra\n\nPN Magare, YD Charjan, RS Wankhade and AS Lawhale\n\nAbstract The soil survey was carried out during 2017-19 in Akola district (M .S) by using GPS technique in Agro- Ecological-Sub-Region (AESRs) of Akola district namely, AESR 6.3 a (K5Dm4). For this purpose soil samples (0-20 cm) were collected from different villages of three tehsils of Akola district. These soil samples were analysed for micro, secondary nutrients and heavy metal status of soil. The soils under the study were neutral to strongly alkaline in nature, safe in limit of electrical conductivity and calcareous in nature.The deficiencies of Zn, Fe, and B in these soils were 40, 20 and 27 per cent respectively whereas, exchangeable Ca, M g and S were found adequate in all the soils. The organic carbon were significantly correlated with micronutrients except that DTPA-M n. Available S was significantly and negatively relationship with organic carbon (r=-0.726**). The values of Co, Cd, Pb, Cr and Ni in soil were observed below than the permissible limit."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 8c1536ad-bd3f-41cb-9238-c68f620e2400
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\pharma_innovation_akola_paper.pdf", "chroma:document": "Keywords: Physico-chemical properties, correlation, micro and secondary nutrients, heavy metal"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 776c6464-d2be-46e8-b50d-fb25150eb2ff
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\pharma_innovation_akola_paper.pdf", "chroma:document": "Introduction Micronutrients have emerged as a wide spread deficiency in Indian soils particularly Zn deficiency in Maharashtra, due to continual cropping, soil and water losses, percolation losses and with the use of high analysis fertilizers in exhaustive cropping system with minimum use of organic manures. In India widespread deficiencies of Zn, Fe and B are associated with specific soil correctives and cropping schemes. Boron and zinc deficiencies are becoming increa singly important in Indian soil mostly because of decrease in soil, low soil organic matter and non -addition of deficit minerals on the basis of soil test. Moreover, steady growth of crop yield specifically through green revolution, actually compounded the problem by progressively depleting micronutrients pool. The importance of secondary minerals and micronutrients has been realized during the past three decades and widespread minerals deficiencies are observed in most of the soils of Maharashtra. Such minerals are playing an important role in increasing food grain production to fulfill the ever growing demand. Soil pollution composes the pollution of soils with substances, mostly chemicals that are out of place or are current at concentrations more than normal which may have detrimental impacts on humans or other organisms. It is difficult to define soil pollution exactly because different opinions exist on how to characterize a pollutant; while some consider the use of pesticides admissible if their effect does not exceed the intended result, others do not consider any use of pesticides or even chemical fertilizers admissible. However, soil pollution is also caused by means other than the directly addition of man-made chemicals such as agricultural runoff water, erosion, industrial wastage substances, acidic components and radioactive fallout. Keeping these in view and also lack of information on micronutrients status to identify the emerging micronutrient deficiency or toxicity in the soils, therefore a comprehensive study was undertaken to know the micronutrient indices and its fertility status in soils of Akola, Maharashtra."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 47b5258e-a700-407e-9e66-30e3fafc8472
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\pharma_innovation_akola_paper.pdf", "chroma:document": "Materials and Methods Akola (AESR 6.3 a (K5Dm4) situated at Deccan Plateau in between 21\u00b0 07' 19''N latitude and 77\u00b0 03' 34'' E longitude at an altitude of 307 m above msl of Akot, 20\u00b0 4243''N latitude and 77\u00b0 27' 30'' E longitude at an altitude of 282 m above msl of Murtijapur and 20\u00b0 54' 33''N latitude and 76\u00b0 50' 17'' E longitude at an altitude of 254 m above msl of Telhara tehsil has been classified under hot semi-arid ecosystem. Geo-referenced representing surface (0-20 cm depth) soil samples were collected tehsil wise during 2017-18 and 2018-19 of Akola district.\n\n~ 1690 ~\n\nT he Pharma Innovation Journal\n\nThe latitude, longitude and altitude of sampling sites in the study area were recorded with the help of Geographical Positioning System (GPS). The grid survey (5 km interval) of district was carried out, and soil samples from different cropping systems in homogeneous area were selected. The villages were selected randomly in each district. So the sampling sites scattered uniformly in each tahsil of the district. Soil pH was determined with the help of pH meter in 1:2.5 soils: water suspension as described by Jackson (1973) [6]. Organic carbon was determined by Walkley and Black wet- [21]. Calcium carbonate was oxidation method determined by rapid titration method (Piper, 1966) [13]. The micronutrients and heavy metal in these soil samples were extracted with DTPA solution (Lindsey and Norvell, 1978) [9]. Available boron was determined by 0.01 M CaCl2extract with Azo-Methane \u2013H method (Berger and Troug, 1939) [3]. Exchangeable Calcium and Magnesium were determined by NH4OAc extract using Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer (Hesse, 1971) [5]. The DTPA- micronutrients and heavy metal status areas were delineated into low, medium and high based on their limits.\n\n(1947)"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: d68dd541-c549-477f-8e10-5e672bb267e1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\pharma_innovation_akola_paper.pdf", "chroma:document": "(1947)\n\nResults and Discussions Physico-chemical properties In Table 1, the soils were neutral to strongly alkaline (7.38 to 8.54) in reaction. The electrical conductivity ranged from 0.22 to 0.55 dS m-1 with a mean value of 0.32 dS m-1 indicating non-saline in nature. The organic carbon ranged from 1.84 to 8.70 g kg-1 with a mean value of 5.02 g kg -1 soil. The soil samples of Akola district were found low to medium in organic carbon. The CaCO3 ranged from 2.13 to 10.22% with a mean value of 5.97%. The soils were slightly calcareous to calcareous in nature. The variation in calcium carbonate content may be attributed due to the difference in the type of parent material from which these soils have been formed. Taje et al., (2022) [20] reported similar results.\n\nMicronutrients Available zinc The available zinc varied from 0.37 to 2.34 mg kg -1 with mean value of 0.99 mg kg-1 (Table 1). Similar results were reported by Meena et al., (2021) [12]. On the basis of critical limit (0.6 mg kg-1), 40% soil samples were deficient, 53% soil samples were marginal and 7% soil samples were adequate in available zinc. The deficiency of available zinc, might be due to low organic matter content in soil, which acts as natural chelating agent, washing the uppersoil surface and excess of pH in soil. The similar observation was also noted by Kumar et al., (2014) [8] in soils of Vertisol of Kabeerdham district of Chattisgargh."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 5bc3d9d1-49ca-45c7-90a3-9c216ac4ad6c
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\pharma_innovation_akola_paper.pdf", "chroma:document": "Available copper Available copper content in soils varied from 0.78 to 4.98 mg kg-1 with a mean value of 2.95 mg kg-1 (Table 1). Srivastava et al., (2016) [19] reported the similar results. Considering 0.2 mg kg-1 soil as a critical limit, 7% soil samples were medium (0.2- 0.4 mg kg-1) and 93% soil samples were high in available Cu. The sufficiency of Cu in soils it might be due to synergistic effect of soil parameters like soil pH, EC and OC which have dominant role in the availability of Cu. Brar et al. (2008) [4] also, showed the status of available copper from low to sufficient with wide variation in Indian soils.\n\nhttps://www.thepharmajournal.com\n\nAvailable iron Available iron content in soils of Akola district ranged from 2.45 to 28.37 mg kg-1 with a mean value of 12.64 mg kg -1 (Table 1). Srivastava et al. (2016) [19] also reported similar results. Considering 4.5 as the critical limit, 20% soil samples were deficient (< 4.5 mg kg-1), 60% soil samples were marginal (4.5-7.5 mg kg-1) and 20% soil samples fall in the category of adequate (> 7.5 mg kg -1). The differentiation was occur due to various soil types and their characteristics, vegetation, nature of chemical extractants and agro-ecological condition of the particular region. Yadav and Meena (2009) [22] found that, 56 per cent soil samples were deficit in DTPA - Fe content in soil series of Degana, Rajasthan. The increase in iron deficiency in the soils of Akola district might be attributed to intensive cultivation of high yielding hybrids of almost all crops as well as high calcium carbonate content in soils."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 8f039cb9-d9a2-4591-8112-e753db7d8312
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\pharma_innovation_akola_paper.pdf", "chroma:document": "Available manganese Available manganese varied from 5.89 to 23.47 mg kg -1 with a mean value of 14.56 mg kg-1 (Table 1). Singh and Yadav (2017) [17] also reported similar results. Considering 2 as the critical limit, 20% soil samples were marginal (2.0-4.0 mg kg- 1) and 80% soil samples fall in the category of adequate (> 4 mg kg-1). The availability of Mn decreased with increase in CaCO3 content and pHof soils which might due to the formation of less soluble compounds like MnCO3 or Mn (OH) 2. The higher pH favors the formation of less soluble organic complexes of Mn, which reduces the availability of Mn and the activity of soil micro-organism which oxidizes soluble Mn2+ (Singh et al., 2013) [17].\n\nAvailable boron The available boron in the soils of Akola district (Table 1) varied from 0.32 to 1.37 mg kg-1 with a mean of 0.75 mg kg-1. Basumatary et al. (2021) [2] reported similar results. On the basis of 0.5 mg kg-1 as the critical limit, 27% soil samples were deficient (<0.5 mg kg-1), 53% soil samples were marginal (0.5-0.75 mg kg-1) and 20% soil samples were recorded in the category of adequate (>0.75 mg kg -1). Similar observations were recorded by Arora and Chahal (2014) [1].\n\nSecondary nutrients Available Sulphur The available sulphur in different tehsils of Akola district (Table 1) varied from7.54 to 29.90 mg kg -1 with a mean value of 19.64 mg kg-1. Similar results were reported by Meena et al., (2021) [12]. On the basis of critical limit (<10mg kg -1), 7% soil samples were observed in deficient while, 33% were found marginal and 60% were adequate in nature. The majority of soils were high in range, might be due to moderate to high content of organic carbon and fine texture of soils. Srinivasan et al. (2013) [18] examined available macro and micronutrients in cashew growing soils of South Kannada district of coastal Karnataka and reported that, available sulphur in the soils varied from 6.25 to 20 mg kg -1."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: bd624fd5-47ab-4455-a912-d4ec4878bdda
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\pharma_innovation_akola_paper.pdf", "chroma:document": "Exchangeable calcium The exchangeable calcium (Table 1) in soil of Akola district ranged between 8.76 and 21.13 cmol (p +) kg-1 with a mean value of 12.83 cmol (p+) kg-1. Similar results were reported by [2]. The higher amount of Basumatary et al., exchangeable Ca in soils under study, might be due to high\n\n(2021)\n\n~ 1691 ~\n\nT he Pharma Innovation Journal\n\nclay content in soil and calcareous in nature. The availability of exchangeable Ca is due to no leaching losses of bases and moderate to high organic carbon content in the soils. Shetty et al. (2008) [15] found that the exchangeable calcium ranged from 1.9 to 5.5 cmol (p+) kg-1 in maize growing areas of Southern Karnataka, while Srinivasan et al. (2013) [18] noticed that exchangeable calcium varied from 0.49 to 1.90 cmol (p +) kg-1 in cashew growing soils of coastal Karnataka.\n\nhttps://www.thepharmajournal.com lowest value (0.03) was observed in Talegaon wadner village of Telhara tehsil. The concentration of heavy metals in the soils of the studied sites developed from different parent materials showed significant variation. Sandy soils from granite rocks generally contain lower concentration of heavy metals than clay soils derived from mafic rocks. Kumar et al., (2021) [7] reported similar results in forest soil of Dehradun.\n\nExchangeable magnesium The exchangeable magnesium (Table 1) in soils of Akola district ranged from 5.68 to 14.25 cmol (p +) kg-1 with a mean value of 9.31 cmol (p+) kg-1. Similar results were reported by Basumatary et al., (2021) [2]. On the basis of critical limit (10 cmol (p+) kg-1), 67% soil samples were deficient and 33% soil samples were sufficient in exchangeable magnesium. The deficiency of magnesium occurs due to coarse texture of soils. Shetty et al. (2008) [15] stated that exchangeable magnesium varies from 0.9 to 3.7 cmol (p+) kg-1 in maize growing areas of southern transition zone of Karnataka."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 18f63adb-a52d-4434-91ad-1c6ae3a5b1f2
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\pharma_innovation_akola_paper.pdf", "chroma:document": "Heavy metal status In Table 3, the concentration of Co, Cd, Pb, Cr and Ni varied from 0.011 to 0.170, 0.001 to 0.0450.01 to 0.42, 0.04 to 0.42 and 0.03 to 0.87 mg kg-1 with mean values of 0.038, 0.015, 0.11, 0.24 and 0.44 mg kg-1, respectively. The high Co and Cd were recorded in Akot tehsil and lowest value in Dhamangaon Akot tehsil. The highest value of Pb was recorded in the village of Sheri of Telhara tehsil and lowest value in the village of Akoli Jaha of Murtijapur tehsil. The maximum and low values of Cr status could be noticed in the village of Khodad and Rajur Sarode of Murtijapur tehsil. In Akot tehsil, Ramapur village recorded maximum value of Ni (0.87) and\n\nCorrelationship among soil properties with nutrient status in soils of Akola, Maharashtra The correlation between pH and Fe was found significantly but negatively correlated (r = -0.461**), while positive correlation was observed with organic carbon (r = 0.628**). Similar results of correlation were reported by Meena et al. (2012) [11]. pH is highly significant and negative correlation with S (r=-0.639**) followed by Fe (r=-0.461**) and Cu (r=- 0.339*). This might be due to organic carbon forms soluble complexes with micronutrients which subsequently become available to plants (Shah and Andrabi, 2010) [14]. It could be observed that iron and micronutrients are decline with the rise in pH of the soil. pH also non-significantly negative correlated with Mn (r=-0.044). Correlationhip of micronutrient with organic carbon in soil improve noticed significantly with rise in organic carbon. Thus, regular application of organic matter to the soil is important for maintaining the level of organic carbon in soil to optimum level, which ultimately helps in supply of micronutrient continuously to the crops. Availability of DTPA -extractable micronutrients in presence of higher content of organic carbon is due to chelation of this metallic cation with humic substances in organic matter (Mandal et al. 2005) [10]."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: b9cb7d37-b06f-4652-b8f9-2b19f1a53dc1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\pharma_innovation_akola_paper.pdf", "chroma:document": "that\n\navailability\n\nof micronutrients\n\nTable 1: Physico-chemical properties and nutrient status in soils of Akola, M aharashtra\n\nAES R\n\nS ample No.\n\npH\n\nS oil Properties EC dS m-1\n\nOC (g kg-1)\n\nCaCO3 (%)\n\nMicronutrients (mg kg-1)\n\nZn Cu\n\nFe Mn\n\nB\n\nS econdary Nutrients S (mg kg-1)\n\nEx. Ca Ex. Mg\n\nAkot\n\nM urtijapur\n\nTelhara\n\nRamapur-11 Dhamangaon-6 Kawsa-14 Umara-82 Wadali-Satwai-12 Akoli Jaha-5 Rajur Sarode-6 M alkapur-3 Pingla-6 Khodad-5 Sadarpur-14 Talegaon Wadner-4 Khel M ukadam-2 Adsul-12 Sheri-15 M in. M ax. M ean S.D\n\n8.23 7.52 8.01 7.68 8.17 8.18 7.93 8.04 7.89 8.04 8.04 8.54 8.11 7.44 7.38 7.38 8.54 7.94 0.31\n\n0.26 0.34 0.33 0.30 0.22 0.30 0.30 0.44 0.55 0.32 0.23 0.30 0.29 0.33 0.31 0.22 0.55 0.32 0.08\n\n4.90 5.78 3.57 5.21 4.58 3.67 8.70 3.77 4.48 5.10 4.29 5.28 1.84 8.18 6.00 1.84 8.70 5.02 1.72\n\n2.13 3.50 8.13 10.22 4.24 4.58 2.38 4.88 5.20 3.71 8.13 6.83 9.63 8.89 7.12 2.13 10.22 5.97 2.63\n\n1.37 0.98 4.50 7.77 1.10 0.81 3.10 13.78 10.21 0.70 0.56 1.68 17.52 16.42 0.32 0.96 4.10 28.37 19.65 0.80 1.42 1.59 21.11 23.47 0.48 20.23 0.96 0.76 4.56 2.45 18.45 0.69 1.38 0.78 3.74 0.54 1.74 11.78 22.52 1.25 5.89 0.79 1.59 2.19 27.41 9.98 0.44 1.47 3.11 14.24 0.44 3.42 4.42 14.44 1.37 18.24 0.54 0.38 4.58 7.89 0.59 4.00 13.14 13.47 0.91 9.98 0.60 0.37 4.98 10.45 7.69 0.42 2.34 3.52 8.88 5.89 0.32 0.37 0.78 2.45 2.34 4.98 28.37 23.47 1.37 0.99 2.95 12.64 14.56 0.75 5.75 0.31 0.57 1.37 8.12\n\n20.93 16.99 14. 00 21.12 27.97 28.48 10.40 26.20 12.22 7.54 22.94 29.90 11.15 20.54 18.65 7.54 29.90 19.64 7.22\n\ncmol (p+) kg-1 14.25 17.21 12.32 21.13 8.18 12.10 7.79 9.87 8.70 10.36 7.74 13.48 8.14 12.16 5.68 8.76 7.32 10.52 8.19 9.78 10.13 11.20 11.32 15.22 14.15 19.28 7.78 10.22 8.10 11.23 5.68 8.76 14.25 21.13 9.31 12.83 2.55 3.73\n\n~ 1692 ~\n\nT he Pharma Innovation Journal\n\nhttps://www.thepharmajournal.com\n\nTable 2: Per cent sample deficient, nutrient status and nutrient indices in soils of Akola, M aharashtra\n\nAES R"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 1a5d51a8-7768-430e-adf9-d1e93c9c3c38
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\pharma_innovation_akola_paper.pdf", "chroma:document": "cmol (p+) kg-1 14.25 17.21 12.32 21.13 8.18 12.10 7.79 9.87 8.70 10.36 7.74 13.48 8.14 12.16 5.68 8.76 7.32 10.52 8.19 9.78 10.13 11.20 11.32 15.22 14.15 19.28 7.78 10.22 8.10 11.23 5.68 8.76 14.25 21.13 9.31 12.83 2.55 3.73\n\n~ 1692 ~\n\nT he Pharma Innovation Journal\n\nhttps://www.thepharmajournal.com\n\nTable 2: Per cent sample deficient, nutrient status and nutrient indices in soils of Akola, M aharashtra\n\nAES R\n\nAvailable-Zn Available-Cu Available-Fe Available-M n Available-B Available-S\n\nNo. of S ample\n\n15\n\nPer cent sample Deficient\n\n40 0 20 0 27 7\n\nNumber of samples Low Medium High 1 (7) 8 (53) 6 (40) 14 (93) 1 (7) 0 (0) 3 (20) 9 (60) 3 (20) 12 (80) 3 (20) 0 (0) 3 (20) 8 (53) 4 (27) 9 (60) 5 (33) 1 (7)\n\nNutrient Indices\n\n1.66 2.93 2.00 2.80 1.93 2.53\n\nFertility Rating\n\nLow High M edium High M edium High\n\nTable 3: DTPA-extractable heavy metal status (mg kg-1) in soils of Akola, M aharashtra\n\nAES R Akot\n\nM urtijapur\n\nTelhara\n\nS ample No. Ramapur-11 Dhamangaon16 Kawsa-14 Umara-82 Wadali-Satwai-12 Akoli Jaha-5 Rajur sarode-6 M alkapur-3 Pingla-6 Khodad-5 Sadarpur-14 Talegaon wadner-4 Khel mukadam-2 Adsul-12 Sheri-15 M in M ax M ean S.D\n\nCo 0.170 0.011 0.015 0.049 0.023 0.018 0.033 0.015 0.023 0.029 0.046 0.080 0.014 0.018 0.026 0.011 0.170 0.038 0.040\n\nCd 0.045 0.003 0. 021 0.001 0.031 0.024 0.003 0.004 0.037 0.010 0.002 0.022 0.004 0.012 0.018 0.001 0.045 0.015 0.014\n\nPb 0.09 0.06 0.07 0.09 0.15 0.01 0.37 0.02 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.04 0.42 0.01 0.42 0.11 0.11\n\nCr 0.28 0.35 0.21 0.20 0.30 0.33 0.04 0.24 0.17 0.42 0.29 0.05 0.23 0.22 0.38 0.04 0.42 0.24 0.10\n\nNi 0.87 0.38 0.29 0.66 0.63 0.55 0.34 0.51 0.38 0.60 0.48 0.03 0.21 0.37 0.44 0.03 0.87 0.44 0.20\n\nTable 4: Correlation among physico-chemical properties with nutrient status in soils of Akola, M aharashtra\n\npH OC CaCO3 Zn Cu Fe M n B S\n\npH 1 0.628** -0.279* 0.471** -0.339* -0.461** -0.044NS 0.647** -0.639**\n\nOC\n\n1 -0.283* 0.710** -0.371** -0.596** 0.048NS 0.742** -0.726**\n\nCaCO3\n\nZn\n\nCu"}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 09d35c43-0feb-4fea-8793-42fd03015a66
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\pharma_innovation_akola_paper.pdf", "chroma:document": "Cr 0.28 0.35 0.21 0.20 0.30 0.33 0.04 0.24 0.17 0.42 0.29 0.05 0.23 0.22 0.38 0.04 0.42 0.24 0.10\n\nNi 0.87 0.38 0.29 0.66 0.63 0.55 0.34 0.51 0.38 0.60 0.48 0.03 0.21 0.37 0.44 0.03 0.87 0.44 0.20\n\nTable 4: Correlation among physico-chemical properties with nutrient status in soils of Akola, M aharashtra\n\npH OC CaCO3 Zn Cu Fe M n B S\n\npH 1 0.628** -0.279* 0.471** -0.339* -0.461** -0.044NS 0.647** -0.639**\n\nOC\n\n1 -0.283* 0.710** -0.371** -0.596** 0.048NS 0.742** -0.726**\n\nCaCO3\n\nZn\n\nCu\n\n1 -0.317* 0.230NS 0.079NS -0.172NS -0.344* 0.198NS\n\n1 -0.373** -0.485** 0.125NS 0.632** -0.725**\n\n1 0.288* 0.100NS -0.432** 0.415** n = 55 (n= number of observations)\n\nFe\n\n1 0.318* -0.529** 0.537**\n\nMn\n\n1 0.039NS -0.082NS\n\nB\n\n1 -0.774**\n\nS\n\n1\n\nConclusion From the study it could be concluded that the soil of Akola district were neutral to strongly alkaline in nature (7.38 to 8.54), low to medium in organic carbon status and calcareous in nature. The DTPA-Zn, Cu, Fe, Mn and B varied from 0.37- 2.34, 0.78-4.98, 2.45-28.37, 5.89-23.47 and 0.32-1.37 mg kg-1 respectively, indicating wide spread deficiencies of zinc 40%, Fe- 20%, B-27% and S-7%. The soils of Akola were high in Ca and Mg and available sulphur. The organic carbon was significantly correlated with all micronutrients except DTPA- Mn. High nutrient index was observed in Cu (2.93), Mn (2.80) and S (2.53), while medium in Fe (2.00) and B (1.93).\n\nSpatial variability of fertility status in soils of Dima Hasao district of Assam. Annals of Plant and Soil Research. 2021;23(3):368-374.\n\n3. Berger KC, Troug E. Boron determination in soil and plants. Indian Eng. Chem. Anal. Ed. 1939;11:540-545. 4. Brar MS, Khurana MPS, Sharma P, Malhi SS. Management practices to alleviate micronutrient stress in Indian soil Proc. 17th Intern. Symp. of CIEC, 24.27 Nov. 2008 at NRC Cairo, Egypt."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: b9d0a129-6313-4497-8e01-78a1d87b9cbb
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\pharma_innovation_akola_paper.pdf", "chroma:document": "Spatial variability of fertility status in soils of Dima Hasao district of Assam. Annals of Plant and Soil Research. 2021;23(3):368-374.\n\n3. Berger KC, Troug E. Boron determination in soil and plants. Indian Eng. Chem. Anal. Ed. 1939;11:540-545. 4. Brar MS, Khurana MPS, Sharma P, Malhi SS. Management practices to alleviate micronutrient stress in Indian soil Proc. 17th Intern. Symp. of CIEC, 24.27 Nov. 2008 at NRC Cairo, Egypt.\n\n5. Hesse PR. A Text Book of Soil Chemical Analysis, John Murray (Publishers) Ltd., London, UK. 1971, 528. Jackson ML. Soil Chemical Analysis. Prentice Hall of India Private Limited, New Delhi. 1973.\n\n5. Hesse PR. A Text Book of Soil Chemical Analysis, John Murray (Publishers) Ltd., London, UK. 1971, 528. Jackson ML. Soil Chemical Analysis. Prentice Hall of India Private Limited, New Delhi. 1973.\n\nReferences 1. Arora S, Chahal DS. Forms of boron in alkaline alluvial soils in relation to soil properties and their contribution to available and total boron pool. Communi. Soil Sci. & Pl. Anal. 2014;45(17):2247-2257.\n\n2. Basumatary A, Kandali GG, Bordoloi A, Sarmah T.\n\n7. Kumar R, Sinha S, Kumar AR, Rawat L. Seasonal variation in heavy metals of forest soils of Dehradun. Annals of Plant and Soil Research. 2021;23(1):104-107. 8. Kumar P, Kumar A, Dhyani BP, Kumar P, Shahi UP, Singh SP, Kumar R, Kumar Y, Kumar A, Raizada S. Soil fertility status in Vertisol of Kabeerdham district of\n\n~ 1693 ~\n\nT he Pharma Innovation Journal\n\nChattisgargh, Research. 2014;8(14):1209-1217.\n\nIndia. African Journal of Agriculture\n\n9. Lindsay WL, Norvell WA. Development of a DTPA soil test for zinc, iron, manganese and cupper. Soil Science Society of Am. J. 1978;42:421-428."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 196dabc5-d2d8-48c2-afc9-cf267dd2e1e4
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\pharma_innovation_akola_paper.pdf", "chroma:document": "~ 1693 ~\n\nT he Pharma Innovation Journal\n\nChattisgargh, Research. 2014;8(14):1209-1217.\n\nIndia. African Journal of Agriculture\n\n9. Lindsay WL, Norvell WA. Development of a DTPA soil test for zinc, iron, manganese and cupper. Soil Science Society of Am. J. 1978;42:421-428.\n\n10. Mandal DK, Esther Shekinath D, Tiwary P, Challa O. Influence of catenary soils on water use efficiency and yield of rainfed soybean in Vidharbha region. Journal of the Indian Society of Soil Science. 2005;53:566-570. 11. Meena RH, Giri JD, Choudhury SR, Shyampura RL. Distribution of available micronutrients as related to the soil characteristics in Malwa plateau region in southern Rajasthan. Asian J Soil Sci. 2012;7(2):206-210.\n\n12. Meena RS, Singh R, Kumar A. Status of available micronutrients in soils of Neem Ka Thana tehsil, Sikar district of Rajasthan. Annals of Plant and Soil Research. 2021;23(4):519-522.\n\n13. Piper CS. Soil and Plant Analysis, Hans. Pub. Bombay. Asian Ed. 1966, 368-374. 14. Shah, Shakeel Ahamad,\n\nJeelani Andrabi SGH. Micronutrient cation studies of some paddy growing soils of Kashmir. An Asian Journal of Soil Science. 2010;4:165-167.\n\n15. Shetty YV, Amaranatha Reddy AL, Kumar MD, Vageesh TS. Jayaprakash SM. Fertility status and nutrient index of maize growing areas of Southern transition zone of Karnataka. Karnataka J Agric. Sci. 2008;21(4):580-582. 16. Singh DP, Yadav KK, Qureshi FM. Available micronutrient status, their relationship with soil physico- chemical properties and content in wheat crop of semi- arid eastern plain zone of Rajasthan. Green Farming. 2013;4(2):137-142.\n\n17. Singh R, Yadav S. Status of available sulphur and micronutrients in soils of Unnao district of Uttar Pradesh. Annals of Plant and Soil Research. 2017;19(1):124-126. 18. Srinivasan R, Natarajan A, Anil Kumar KS, Kalaivanan D. Distribution of available macro and micronutrients in cashew growing soils of dakshina Kannada district of Coastal Karnataka. Madras Agric. J. 2013;100(1-3):113- 117."}


created_at: 2024-11-30 19:14:20
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: a0606f5f-cad7-4920-9898-185841eb9b2d
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\pharma_innovation_akola_paper.pdf", "chroma:document": "17. Singh R, Yadav S. Status of available sulphur and micronutrients in soils of Unnao district of Uttar Pradesh. Annals of Plant and Soil Research. 2017;19(1):124-126. 18. Srinivasan R, Natarajan A, Anil Kumar KS, Kalaivanan D. Distribution of available macro and micronutrients in cashew growing soils of dakshina Kannada district of Coastal Karnataka. Madras Agric. J. 2013;100(1-3):113- 117.\n\n19. Srivastava LK, Mishra VN, Jatav GK, Banwasi R, Dubey A, Verma N. GIS based soil mapping of available macro and micronutrients in Raipur district of Chhattisgarh. Annals of Plant and Soil Research. 2016;18(1):60-65. 20. Taje D, Dutta M, Kichu R. Variability of soil properties in Sikhe village under Lower Subansiri district, Arunachal Pradesh. Annals of Plant and Soil Research. 2022;24(1):80-85.\n\n21. Walkley A. A critical examination of a rapid method for determining organic carbon in soils: Effect of variations in digestion conditions and of organic soil constituents. Soil Sci. 1947;63:251-263.\n\n22. Yadav RL, Meena MC. Available micronutrient status and their relationship with soil properties of Degana soil series of Rajasthan. Journal of the Indian Society of Soil Science. 2009;57(1):90-92.\n\n~ 1694 ~\n\nhttps://www.thepharmajournal.com"}


created_at: 2024-12-15 09:29:18
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 7763c7f7-100c-4793-ad1c-8a0a55c70d1b
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\cotton_tur_chatgpt_data.pdf", "chroma:document": "Combined Table for Cotton and Tur Crops\n\nRecord 1: Soil pH: 6.5, Soil Moisture: 42.0%, Temperature: 27.5\u00b0C, Air Quality Index: 78, Crop: Cotton.\n\nRecord 2: Soil pH: 7.0, Soil Moisture: 50.0%, Temperature: 26.0\u00b0C, Air Quality Index: 82, Crop: Cotton.\n\nRecord 3: Soil pH: 6.8, Soil Moisture: 47.5%, Temperature: 28.0\u00b0C, Air Quality Index: 90, Crop: Cotton.\n\nRecord 4: Soil pH: 6.7, Soil Moisture: 44.0%, Temperature: 25.0\u00b0C, Air Quality Index: 70, Crop: Cotton.\n\nRecord 5: Soil pH: 6.9, Soil Moisture: 49.0%, Temperature: 29.0\u00b0C, Air Quality Index: 88, Crop: Cotton.\n\nRecord 6: Soil pH: 6.6, Soil Moisture: 40.0%, Temperature: 24.5\u00b0C, Air Quality Index: 75, Crop: Cotton.\n\nRecord 7: Soil pH: 7.1, Soil Moisture: 52.0%, Temperature: 30.0\u00b0C, Air Quality Index: 95, Crop: Cotton.\n\nRecord 8: Soil pH: 6.4, Soil Moisture: 38.0%, Temperature: 23.0\u00b0C, Air Quality Index: 72, Crop: Cotton.\n\nRecord 9: Soil pH: 6.9, Soil Moisture: 46.0%, Temperature: 27.0\u00b0C, Air Quality Index: 80, Crop: Cotton.\n\nRecord 10: Soil pH: 7.2, Soil Moisture: 54.0%, Temperature: 31.0\u00b0C, Air Quality Index: 92, Crop:\n\nCotton.\n\nRecord 11: Soil pH: 6.8, Soil Moisture: 43.0%, Temperature: 26.5\u00b0C, Air Quality Index: 85, Crop:\n\nCotton.\n\nRecord 12: Soil pH: 7.0, Soil Moisture: 48.0%, Temperature: 28.5\u00b0C, Air Quality Index: 89, Crop:\n\nCotton.\n\nRecord 13: Soil pH: 6.5, Soil Moisture: 41.5%, Temperature: 25.5\u00b0C, Air Quality Index: 77, Crop:\n\nCotton.\n\nRecord 14: Soil pH: 7.3, Soil Moisture: 55.0%, Temperature: 30.5\u00b0C, Air Quality Index: 96, Crop:\n\nCotton.\n\nRecord 15: Soil pH: 6.7, Soil Moisture: 45.0%, Temperature: 27.8\u00b0C, Air Quality Index: 83, Crop:\n\nCotton.\n\nRecord 16: Soil pH: 6.9, Soil Moisture: 50.5%, Temperature: 29.5\u00b0C, Air Quality Index: 87, Crop:\n\nCotton.\n\nRecord 17: Soil pH: 6.6, Soil Moisture: 39.0%, Temperature: 24.0\u00b0C, Air Quality Index: 74, Crop:\n\nCotton.\n\nRecord 18: Soil pH: 7.1, Soil Moisture: 53.0%, Temperature: 30.8\u00b0C, Air Quality Index: 91, Crop:\n\nCotton."}


created_at: 2024-12-15 09:29:18
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: a03f7678-f892-4be6-9436-18825f1049d9
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\cotton_tur_chatgpt_data.pdf", "chroma:document": "Cotton.\n\nRecord 15: Soil pH: 6.7, Soil Moisture: 45.0%, Temperature: 27.8\u00b0C, Air Quality Index: 83, Crop:\n\nCotton.\n\nRecord 16: Soil pH: 6.9, Soil Moisture: 50.5%, Temperature: 29.5\u00b0C, Air Quality Index: 87, Crop:\n\nCotton.\n\nRecord 17: Soil pH: 6.6, Soil Moisture: 39.0%, Temperature: 24.0\u00b0C, Air Quality Index: 74, Crop:\n\nCotton.\n\nRecord 18: Soil pH: 7.1, Soil Moisture: 53.0%, Temperature: 30.8\u00b0C, Air Quality Index: 91, Crop:\n\nCotton.\n\nRecord 19: Soil pH: 6.4, Soil Moisture: 37.5%, Temperature: 22.5\u00b0C, Air Quality Index: 70, Crop:\n\nCotton.\n\nRecord 20: Soil pH: 7.0, Soil Moisture: 48.5%, Temperature: 28.0\u00b0C, Air Quality Index: 84, Crop:\n\nCotton.\n\nRecord 21: Soil pH: 7.2, Soil Moisture: 30.0%, Temperature: 28.0\u00b0C, Air Quality Index: 75, Crop: Tur.\n\nRecord 22: Soil pH: 6.8, Soil Moisture: 35.0%, Temperature: 29.5\u00b0C, Air Quality Index: 80, Crop: Tur.\n\nRecord 23: Soil pH: 7.0, Soil Moisture: 32.5%, Temperature: 27.0\u00b0C, Air Quality Index: 78, Crop: Tur.\n\nRecord 24: Soil pH: 7.1, Soil Moisture: 33.0%, Temperature: 30.0\u00b0C, Air Quality Index: 85, Crop: Tur.\n\nRecord 25: Soil pH: 7.3, Soil Moisture: 36.5%, Temperature: 31.5\u00b0C, Air Quality Index: 88, Crop: Tur.\n\nRecord 26: Soil pH: 6.9, Soil Moisture: 31.0%, Temperature: 26.5\u00b0C, Air Quality Index: 72, Crop: Tur.\n\nRecord 27: Soil pH: 7.4, Soil Moisture: 37.0%, Temperature: 32.0\u00b0C, Air Quality Index: 90, Crop: Tur.\n\nRecord 28: Soil pH: 7.0, Soil Moisture: 34.0%, Temperature: 29.0\u00b0C, Air Quality Index: 81, Crop: Tur.\n\nRecord 29: Soil pH: 6.7, Soil Moisture: 29.5%, Temperature: 25.5\u00b0C, Air Quality Index: 70, Crop: Tur.\n\nRecord 30: Soil pH: 7.1, Soil Moisture: 35.0%, Temperature: 30.5\u00b0C, Air Quality Index: 83, Crop: Tur.\n\nRecord 31: Soil pH: 7.5, Soil Moisture: 38.5%, Temperature: 33.0\u00b0C, Air Quality Index: 92, Crop: Tur.\n\nRecord 32: Soil pH: 6.8, Soil Moisture: 32.0%, Temperature: 28.5\u00b0C, Air Quality Index: 79, Crop: Tur.\n\nRecord 33: Soil pH: 7.0, Soil Moisture: 33.5%, Temperature: 27.5\u00b0C, Air Quality Index: 76, Crop: Tur."}


created_at: 2024-12-15 09:29:18
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: f2bb88b9-3ae1-436a-b4f7-aecdcfa4b6de
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\cotton_tur_chatgpt_data.pdf", "chroma:document": "Record 30: Soil pH: 7.1, Soil Moisture: 35.0%, Temperature: 30.5\u00b0C, Air Quality Index: 83, Crop: Tur.\n\nRecord 31: Soil pH: 7.5, Soil Moisture: 38.5%, Temperature: 33.0\u00b0C, Air Quality Index: 92, Crop: Tur.\n\nRecord 32: Soil pH: 6.8, Soil Moisture: 32.0%, Temperature: 28.5\u00b0C, Air Quality Index: 79, Crop: Tur.\n\nRecord 33: Soil pH: 7.0, Soil Moisture: 33.5%, Temperature: 27.5\u00b0C, Air Quality Index: 76, Crop: Tur.\n\nRecord 34: Soil pH: 7.2, Soil Moisture: 36.0%, Temperature: 31.0\u00b0C, Air Quality Index: 87, Crop: Tur.\n\nRecord 35: Soil pH: 7.3, Soil Moisture: 37.5%, Temperature: 32.5\u00b0C, Air Quality Index: 89, Crop: Tur.\n\nRecord 36: Soil pH: 7.1, Soil Moisture: 34.5%, Temperature: 29.5\u00b0C, Air Quality Index: 82, Crop: Tur.\n\nRecord 37: Soil pH: 6.9, Soil Moisture: 30.5%, Temperature: 26.0\u00b0C, Air Quality Index: 74, Crop: Tur.\n\nRecord 38: Soil pH: 7.4, Soil Moisture: 38.0%, Temperature: 32.8\u00b0C, Air Quality Index: 91, Crop: Tur.\n\nRecord 39: Soil pH: 7.2, Soil Moisture: 35.5%, Temperature: 30.2\u00b0C, Air Quality Index: 86, Crop: Tur.\n\nRecord 40: Soil pH: 7.0, Soil Moisture: 32.0%, Temperature: 28.0\u00b0C, Air Quality Index: 77, Crop: Tur."}


created_at: 2025-01-03 06:40:47
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 4d45faef-fbf2-41bc-84fe-e662c3598f8f
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\BC_Pigeonpea_183-202_2013.pdf", "chroma:document": "8\n\nPigeonpea\n\nHari D. Upadhyaya, Shivali Sharma, K.N. Reddy, Rachit Saxena, Rajeev K. Varshney and C.L. Laxmipathi Gowda\n\nInternational Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru, Hyderabad, India\n\n8.1 Introduction"}


created_at: 2025-01-03 06:40:47
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 6d1cac6a-c1e4-4f60-bc8d-67e16da177b5
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\BC_Pigeonpea_183-202_2013.pdf", "chroma:document": "Pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millspaugh] is a short-lived perennial shrub that is traditionally cultivated as an annual grain legume crop in tropical and subtropical regions of the world. It is known by various names, such as red gram and congo bean (English), tur and arhar (Hindi), guand (Portuguese), gandul (Spanish), poid d\u2019Angole and poid de Congo (French) and ervilba de Congo in Angola, and is grown primarily as a food crop. Dry whole seed and dehulled and split seed (dhal) are used for cooking various dishes. Besides its use as a food crop, there are also forage, fodder, fuel and medicine uses. The crushed dry seeds are fed to animals, while the green leaves form a quality fodder. In rural areas, dry stems of pigeonpea are used for fuel, thatching, basket-making, etc. The plants are also used to culture lac insects. Pigeonpea has a deep root system which helps it to withstand drought, and is grown on mountain slopes to bind the soil and reduce soil erosion. Due to its deep root system, pigeonpea offers little competition to associated crops and is therefore extensively used in intercropping systems with cereals, such as millets, sor- ghum and maize; it also provides a good means to improve fertility in fallows. In a cropping season, the plants fix about 40 kg/ha atmospheric nitrogen and add valu- able organic matter to the soil through fallen leaves (up to 3.1 t/ha of leaf dry matter) (Rupela, Gowda, Wani, & Ranga Rao, 2004). Its roots help in releasing soil-bound phosphorus to make it available for plant growth. Pigeonpea seed protein content (on average approximately 21%) compares well with that of other important grain leg- umes. Owing to several unique characteristics and benefits, pigeonpea has become an ideal crop for sustainable agricultural systems in rainfed areas. Because of the large temporal variation (90\u2013300 days) for maturity, four major durations for pigeon- pea varieties exist: extra short (mature in <100 days), short (100\u2013120 days), medium (140\u2013180 days) and long duration (>200 days). Each group is suited to a particular agro-ecosystem, which is defined by altitude, temperatures, latitude and day length. Invariably, the traditional pigeonpea cultivars and landraces are long duration types and grown as intercrops with other more early maturing cereals and legumes. Extra short and short varieties have the potential for inclusion as sole crop into rotation as an alternative to rice within the rice\u2013wheat systems of the Indo-Gangetic Plain in"}


created_at: 2025-01-03 06:40:47
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 36a8bf26-bc34-4f9f-a3b7-7d12d2e1ce1a
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\BC_Pigeonpea_183-202_2013.pdf", "chroma:document": "182\n\nAsia, especially during periods of water shortage, price incentives and problems of soil fertility. Further, pigeonpea production is affected by several biotic and abiotic stresses. Among biotic factors, important diseases such as sterility mosaic, Fusarium wilt (FW), Phytophthora blight, root rot, stem canker and Alternaria blight in the Indian subcontinent; wilt and Cercospora leaf spot in eastern Africa and witches\u2019 broom in the Caribbean and Central America cause considerable yield losses. The distribution of these diseases is geographically restricted. For example, sterility mosaic disease (SMD), the most important disease of Indian subcontinent, is not found in eastern Africa. Similarly witches\u2019 broom is absent from the two major pigeonpea-growing regions, the Indian subcontinent and eastern Africa. Besides dis- eases, the seeds and other parts of the plant are fed upon by many insects, with over 200 species having been recorded in India alone. Some of these insects cause suf- ficient crop losses to be regarded as major pests, but the majority are seldom abun- dant enough to cause much damage, or are of sporadic or localized importance, and regarded as minor pests. The pod-damaging insects (pod borers and pod fly) cause significant yield losses in pigeonpea and therefore are the most important pests of this crop.\n\n8.2 Origin, Distribution, Diversity and Taxonomy"}


created_at: 2025-01-03 06:40:47
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 79eb8c97-0a20-47ca-acab-4acbc0f55b7a
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\BC_Pigeonpea_183-202_2013.pdf", "chroma:document": "8.2 Origin, Distribution, Diversity and Taxonomy\n\nThe name pigeonpea was first reported from Barbados, where the seeds were used to feed pigeons (Plukenet, 1692). There are several theories about the true origin of pigeonpea (reviewed in Saxena, Kumar, Reddy, & Arora, 2003). However, based on the range of genetic diversity of the crop in India, Vavilov (1951) concluded that pigeonpea originated in India. Several authors considered eastern Africa to be the centre of origin of pigeonpea, as it occurs there in wild form. However, based on the large diversity among the crop varieties, the presence of several related wild spe- cies, including the progenitor species, linguistic evidence and wide usage in daily cuisine, most of the researchers have agreed on India as the original home of pigeon- pea. India is now unequivocally accepted as the primary centre of origin and Africa as the secondary centre of origin of pigeonpea (De, 1974; Royes Vernon, 1976; van der Maesen, 1980). Most probably in the nineteenth century, immigrants from India introduced the crop into East Africa (Hillocks, Minja, Nahdy, & Subrahmanyam, 2000). Thereafter, pigeonpea moved into the Nile valley, then into West Africa and eventually to the Americas (Odeny, 2007). It is now widely grown in the Caribbean region. Further, Reddy (1973) and De (1974) also postulated that the genus Cajanus probably originated from an advanced Atylosia (now reclassified as Cajanus) spe- cies through single gene mutation. It is now well known that this advanced species is C. cajanifolius, the most probable progenitor of pigeonpea, found only in India. Besides C. cajanifolius, 16 species of Cajanus, including cultivated species C. cajan, occur in India.\n\nAt present, pigeonpea is cultivated in the tropical and subtropical areas between 30\u00b0N and 30\u00b0S latitude on 4.71 million hectares with an annual production of 3.69 million metric tons and productivity of 783 kg/ha (FAOSTAT, 2010). The pigeonpea\n\n183"}


created_at: 2025-01-03 06:40:47
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: c26072f7-bff8-4471-882b-02f125d92523
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\BC_Pigeonpea_183-202_2013.pdf", "chroma:document": "At present, pigeonpea is cultivated in the tropical and subtropical areas between 30\u00b0N and 30\u00b0S latitude on 4.71 million hectares with an annual production of 3.69 million metric tons and productivity of 783 kg/ha (FAOSTAT, 2010). The pigeonpea\n\n183\n\nTable 8.1 Major Pigeonpea-Growing Countries of the World\n\nContinent Country\n\nArea (ha)\n\nProductivity (kg/ha)\n\nProduction (tonnes)\n\nAsia\n\nAfrica\n\nAmerica\n\nBangladesh India Myanmar Nepal Pakistan Philippines Burundi Comoros Democratic Republic of the Congo Kenya Malawi Uganda United Republic of Tanzania Bahamas Dominican Republic Grenada Haiti Jamaica Panama Puerto Rico Trinidad and Tobago Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)\n\n811 3,530,000 581,200 21,296 0 684 1900 540 10,139 158,746 190,437 98,200 75,000 230 23,461 640 7200 723 4400 344 1300 1900 4,709,151\n\n951 696 1246 875\n\n1244 1000 592 582 650 1013 947 733 565 1068 765 333 1036 447 755 769 789 783\n\n772 2,460,000 724,200 18,647 0 851 1900 320 5901 103,324 193,005 93,000 55,000 130 25,070 490 2400 749 1969 260 1000 1500 3,690,488\n\nWorld"}


created_at: 2025-01-03 06:40:47
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 4f3eeb31-793b-4a9c-b33e-d4e4b63c5c62
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\BC_Pigeonpea_183-202_2013.pdf", "chroma:document": "811 3,530,000 581,200 21,296 0 684 1900 540 10,139 158,746 190,437 98,200 75,000 230 23,461 640 7200 723 4400 344 1300 1900 4,709,151\n\n951 696 1246 875\n\n1244 1000 592 582 650 1013 947 733 565 1068 765 333 1036 447 755 769 789 783\n\n772 2,460,000 724,200 18,647 0 851 1900 320 5901 103,324 193,005 93,000 55,000 130 25,070 490 2400 749 1969 260 1000 1500 3,690,488\n\nWorld\n\nis widely grown in the Indian subcontinent, which accounts for about 88% of the global pigeonpea production. The major pigeonpea-growing countries in the region are India followed by Myanmar and Nepal. India alone represents about 75% of the area and about 67% of the global pigeonpea production. Africa, including major pigeonpea-growing countries, such as Malawi, Kenya and Uganda, accounts for about 11% of the global production. The Americas and the Caribbean produce about 1% of the total pigeonpea of the world (Table 8.1). Pigeonpea is often cross-polli- nated, with an insect-aided natural out-crossing range from 20% to 70% (Saxena, Singh, & Gupta, 1990), with chromosome number 2n=2x=22 and genome size 1C = 858 Mbp. It belongs to the family Leguminosae, subfamily Papilionoideae, tribe Phaseoleae and the subtribe Cajaninae. The tribe Phaseoleae comprises many edible bean species (Phaseolus, Vigna, Cajanus, Lablab, etc.) of which the mem- bers of subtribe Cajaninae are well distinguished by the presence of vesicular glands on the leaves, calyx and pods. Currently, 11 genera are grouped under the subtribe Cajaninae, including Rhynchosia Lour., Eriosema (DC.), G. Don, Dunbaria, W. & A. and Flemingia Roxb. ex Aiton, but the cultivated pigeonpea C. cajan is the only domesticated species in Cajaninae. The word \u2018Cajanus\u2019 is derived from a Malay word \u2018katschang\u2019 or \u2018katjang\u2019 meaning pod or bean. The members of the earlier\n\n184"}


created_at: 2025-01-03 06:40:47
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 18bbaba4-66d7-408b-a74b-64ed460237e7
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\BC_Pigeonpea_183-202_2013.pdf", "chroma:document": "184\n\ngenus Atylosia closely resemble the genus Cajanus in vegetative and reproductive characters. However, they were relegated to two separate genera mainly on the basis of the presence or absence of seed strophiole. In 1980, van der Maesen revised the taxonomy of both the genera and merged the genus Atylosia into Cajanus follow- ing systematic analysis of morphological, cytological and chemotaxonomical data, which indicated the congenicity of the two genera (van der Maesen, 1980). The revised genus Cajanus currently comprises 18 species from Asia, 15 species from Australia and 1 species from West Africa. Of these, 13 are found only in Australia, 8 in the Indian subcontinent, and 1 in West Africa, with the remaining 14 species occurring in more than 1 country. Based on growth habit, leaf shape, hairiness, struc- ture of corolla, pod size and presence of strophiole, van der Maesen (1980) grouped the genus Cajan into six sections. The 18 erect species were placed under three sec- tions: seven species in section Atylosia, nine species in section Fruticosa and two species in section Cajanus, which consists of the cultivated pigeonpea along with its progenitor, C. cajanifolius. Eleven climbing and creeping species were arranged in two sections, section Cantharospermum (5) and section Volubilis (6); the remaining three trailing species were classified under section Rhynchosoides. Three Cajanus species have been further subdivided into botanical varieties: C. scarabaeoides var. pedunculatus and var. scarabaeoides; C. reticulatus var. grandifolius, var. reticula- tus, and var. maritimus; and C. volubilis var. burmanicus and var. volubilis."}


created_at: 2025-01-03 06:40:47
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 97517b2f-ba17-4e03-a4d8-6cecb808344c
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\BC_Pigeonpea_183-202_2013.pdf", "chroma:document": "On the basis of success in hybridization between pigeonpea and its wild relatives, van der Maesen (1990) placed cultigens in the primary gene pool, all 10 cross-com- patible species C. acutifolius, C. albicans, C. cajanifolius, C. lanceolatus, C. latise- palus, C. lineatus, C. reticulatus, C. scarabaeoides, C. sericeus and C. trinervius in the secondary gene pool, and the cross-incompatible species C. goensis, C. heynei, C. kerstingii, C. mollis, C. platycarpus, C. rugosus, C. volubilis and other Cajaninae such as Rhynchosia Lour., Dunbaria W. and A., Eriosema (DC.) Reichenb in the ter- tiary gene pool.\n\n8.3 Erosion of Genetic Diversity from the Traditional Areas\n\nThe contribution of landraces as source material for crop improvement has been sub- stantial. In the past, most released pigeonpea varieties have been developed through selection from landraces. To meet the challenges in crop improvement, efforts were made to widen the genetic base by collecting and conserving germplasm across the world before it is lost forever, which led to the assembly of large collections at the national and international gene banks. The gene bank at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), serving as a world repos- itory for genetic resources of its mandate crop including pigeonpea, holds 13,771 accessions from 74 countries. Landraces and wild relatives are the best sources of resistance to the biotic and abiotic stresses and contribute towards food security, poverty alleviation, environmental protection and sustainable development. Plant genetic resources (PGR) are finite and vulnerable to erosion due to the severe threats to world food security of replacement of landraces/traditional cultivars by modern\n\n185"}


created_at: 2025-01-03 06:40:47
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: e6ed2d9e-775e-456a-8e07-6f6feb5014e5
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\BC_Pigeonpea_183-202_2013.pdf", "chroma:document": "185\n\nvarieties, natural catastrophes such as droughts, floods, fire hazards, urbanization and industrialization, and habitat loss due to irrigation projects, overgrazing, mining and climate change (Upadhyaya & Gowda, 2009). Therefore, there is an urgent need to assess the existing collection to identify geographical, trait-diversity and taxonom- ical gaps for planning future collection strategies for pigeonpea.\n\n8.4 Status of Germplasm Resources Conservation\n\nThe CGIAR consortium represents the largest concerted effort towards collecting, preserving and utilizing global agricultural resources. CGIAR holds nearly 760,000 samples of the estimated 7.4 million accessions of different crops preserved glob- ally (FAOSTAT, 2010). There are a number of gene banks conserving the pigeonpea germplasm worldwide. ICRISAT has the global responsibility of collecting, con- serving and distributing the pigeonpea germplasm comprising of landraces, modern cultivars, genetic stocks, mutants and wild Cajanus species. It contains 13,216 accessions of cultivated pigeonpea and 555 accessions of wild species in the genus Cajanus from 60 countries. The collection includes 8315 landraces, 4830 breeding materials, 71 improved cultivars and 555 wild accessions. This is the single largest collection of pigeonpea germplasm assembled at any one place in the world. India is the major contributor with 9200 accessions. These accessions came from dona- tions as well as from collecting missions launched in different countries. Other major gene banks holding pigeonpea germplasm are the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (12,900 accessions), New Delhi, India; All India Coordinated Research Project on Pigeonpea (5195 accessions); NBPGR Regional Station Akola (2268 accessions), India; Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI; 1500 accessions), New Delhi and the National Gene Bank of Kenya, Crop Plant Genetic Resources Centre (1380 accessions), Muguga, Kenya (Table 8.2)."}


created_at: 2025-01-03 06:40:47
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 18d81249-25e3-4140-a438-5310f157d0d6
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\BC_Pigeonpea_183-202_2013.pdf", "chroma:document": "Table 8.2 Major Gene Banks Holding Pigeonpea Germplasm\n\nCountry\n\nInstitute\n\nWild Cultivated Total\n\nAustralia\n\nAustralian Tropical Crops and Forages Genetic\n\n352\n\n406\n\n758\n\nResources Centre\n\nBrazil Colombia Ethiopia India\n\nEmbrapa Recursos Gen\u00e9ticos e Biotecnologia Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical International Livestock Research Institute All India Coordinated Research Project on\n\n3 623 539\n\n279 135 143 5195\n\n282 758 682 5195\n\nPigeonpea\n\nIndian Agricultural Research Institute ICRISAT National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources Regional Station Akola, NBPGR\n\n555 41\n\n1500 13,216 12,859 2268\n\n1500 13,771 12,900 2268\n\n(Continued)\n\n186\n\nTable 8.2 Major Gene Banks Holding Pigeonpea Germplasm Table 8.2 (Continued)\n\nCountry\n\nInstitute\n\nWild Cultivated Total\n\nIndonesia Kenya\n\nNational Biological Institute National Genebank of Kenya, Crop Plant Genetic Resources Centre \u2013 Muguga\n\n92\n\n200 1288\n\n200 1380\n\nNepal Philippines\n\nNepal Agricultural Research Council Institute of Plant Breeding, College of\n\n228 629\n\n228 629\n\nAgriculture, University of the Philippines, Los Ba\u00f1os\n\nThailand\n\nThailand Institute of Scientific and Technological\n\n201\n\n201\n\nResearch\n\nUganda\n\nSerere Agriculture and Animal Production\n\n200\n\n200\n\nResearch Institute\n\n8.5 Germplasm Characterization and Evaluation"}


created_at: 2025-01-03 06:40:47
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 683d2bc0-558c-4cc0-ba98-60311320cbf2
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\BC_Pigeonpea_183-202_2013.pdf", "chroma:document": "228 629\n\n228 629\n\nAgriculture, University of the Philippines, Los Ba\u00f1os\n\nThailand\n\nThailand Institute of Scientific and Technological\n\n201\n\n201\n\nResearch\n\nUganda\n\nSerere Agriculture and Animal Production\n\n200\n\n200\n\nResearch Institute\n\n8.5 Germplasm Characterization and Evaluation\n\nGermplasm collection is of little value unless it is characterized, evaluated and documented properly to enhance its utilization in crop improvement. A multidisci- plinary approach is followed at ICRISAT gene bank; the data generated in various disciplines are fed to the pigeonpea germplasm characterization database. The char- acterization was done at the ICRISAT Research Farm in Patancheru on 18 qualitative characters (plant vigor, growth habit, plant pigmentation, stem thickness, flower base colour, streak colour, streak pattern, flowering pattern, pod colour, pod shape, pod hairiness, seed colour pattern, primary seed colour, secondary seed colour, seed eye colour, seed eye colour width, seed shape and seed hilum) and 16 quantitative char- acters were recorded following the \u2018Descriptors for Pigeonpea\u2019 (IBPGR & ICRISAT, 1993). Observations on all qualitative and six quantitative characters (days to 50% flowering, days to 75% maturity, 100-seed weight, harvest index, shelling percent- age and plot seed yield) were recorded on a plot basis. Observations on the remain- ing 10 quantitative traits (leaf size, plant height, number of primary, secondary and tertiary branches, number of racemes, pod bearing length, pods per plant, pod length, seeds per pod) were recorded on three representative plants from each plot. To real- ize the true potential of the accessions and to facilitate the selection of genotypes by researchers, sets of selected pigeonpea germplasm, such as core and mini-core col- lections, were evaluated for important agronomic characters at different locations in India and several other countries in Africa during suitable seasons.\n\n8.5.1 Diversity in the Collection"}


created_at: 2025-01-03 06:40:47
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 67a37532-75ec-439e-970f-95cc61b3148d
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\BC_Pigeonpea_183-202_2013.pdf", "chroma:document": "8.5.1 Diversity in the Collection\n\nTo study the geographical patterns of diversity in the collection, data of 14 qualitative and 12 quantitative traits of 11,402 accessions from 54 countries were analysed. The accessions were grouped based on geographical proximity and similarity of climate (Reddy, Upadhyaya, Gowda, & Singh, 2005; Upadhyaya, Pundir, Gowda, Reddy,\n\n187\n\nTable 8.3 Range of Variation for Important Agronomic Traits in the World Collection of Pigeonpea at ICRISAT Gene Bank, Patancheru, India\n\nCharacter\n\nMean\n\nMinimum Maximum\n\nDays to 50% flowering Days to 75% maturity Plant height (cm) Primary branches (no.) Secondary branches (no.) Tertiary branches (no.) Racemes per plant (no.) Pod length (cm) Pods per plant (no.) Seeds per pod (no.) 100-seed weight (g) Seed protein (%)\n\n133.5 192.1 177.9 13.5 31.3 8.8 150.3 5.7 287.3 3.7 9.3 21.3\n\n52 100 39 1 0 0 6 2.5 9.3 1.6 2.7 13\n\n237 299 310 107 145.3 218.7 915 13.1 1819.3 7.2 25.8 30.8"}


created_at: 2025-01-03 06:40:47
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 70c335a5-32f5-477b-bfed-c4e47c87b21c
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\BC_Pigeonpea_183-202_2013.pdf", "chroma:document": "& Singh, 2005). Large variation was observed in the entire collection for important agronomic traits (Table 8.3). The range of variation for quantitative traits in respect to the different regions was maximum for group AS 4 (south India, Maldives and Sri Lanka) and minimum for germplasm accessions from Europe and Oceania. The region AS 4 encompasses the area of the primary centre of diversity of pigeonpea; therefore, the high variation in the germplasm from that region is not surprising (Upadhyaya et al., 2005). The accessions from Africa were of longer duration, tall and producing large seeds. Accessions from India had medium plant height, high pod number, medium duration and high seed yield. Accessions from Oceania were conspicuous in their short growth duration, short height, few branches, small seeds and low seed yield. Shannon\u2013Weaver diversity index (H\u2032) (Shannon & Weaver, 1949) indicates that the accessions from AS 6 (Indonesia, Philippines and Thailand) had the highest pooled H\u2032 for qualitative traits (0.349 + 0.059) and accessions from Africa the highest for quantitative traits (0.613 + 0.006) (Upadhyaya et al., 2005). African accessions also had highest pooled H\u2032 (0.464 + 0.039) over all the traits. The acces- sions from Oceania had the lowest pooled H\u2032 (0.337 + 0.037). The H\u2032 values across the regions were highest for primary seed colour (0.657 + 0.050) followed by flower streak pattern, seed protein content and shelling percentage, whereas it was lowest for flowering pattern (0.087 + 0.026). A hierarchical cluster analysis conducted on the first three PC scores (92.28% variation) resulted in three clusters. Cluster 1 com- prised accessions from Oceania (60 accessions), cluster 2 comprised accessions from AS 1\u20135 containing 9648 accessions and cluster 3 comprised accessions from Africa, America, Caribbean countries, Europe and AS 6 containing 1694 accessions (Figure 8.1) (Upadhyaya et al., 2005). Semi-spreading growth habit, green stem colour, indeterminate (NDT) flowering pattern and yellow flower were predominant among the qualitative traits. Primary seed colour had maximum variability; orange colour"}


created_at: 2025-01-03 06:40:47
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 7ad0865f-92f0-41bb-9ada-0075405a1843
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\BC_Pigeonpea_183-202_2013.pdf", "chroma:document": "188\n\n12\n\n10\n\n8\n\ne c n a t s d e g a k n L\n\ni\n\ni\n\n6\n\n4\n\n2\n\n0\n\nOceania\n\nAsia4\n\nAsia2\n\nEurope\n\nCaribbean\n\nAfrica\n\nAsia5\n\nAsia3\n\nAsia1\n\nAmericas\n\nAsia6\n\nFigure 8.1 Dendrogram of 11 regions in the entire pigeonpea germplasm based on scores of the first three principal components (92.3% variation).\n\nfollowed by cream were the two most frequent second colours in the collection. At ICRISAT a large number of pigeonpea accessions were tested for biotic and abiotic stresses and promising sources for resistance were identified.\n\n8.6 Germplasm Maintenance\n\nThe ICRISAT gene bank ensures maintenance of germplasm at international stand- ards and the continued availability of good-quality seeds of its mandate crops for research and development globally. Maintenance of germplasm includes main- tenance of seed viability and seed quantity in the gene bank. Seed viability and quantity of germplasm accessions in medium-term store are monitored at regular intervals. Accessions are regenerated when the seed viability is below 85% and/ or seed quantity <100 g in medium-term store. Regeneration is the crucial pro- cess in gene bank management. Accessions with poor quality are given top prior- ity. Objectives for regeneration include maximizing seed quality, optimizing seed quantity and maintaining the genetic integrity of accessions. Pigeonpea floral biol- ogy favors self-pollination. However, it is considered an often cross-pollinating spe- cies without crossing ranging from 20 to 70%, due to visits by bees (Saxena et al., 1990). Therefore, it is essential to preserve the accessions\u2019 integrity using effec- tive pollination control methods. Controlling pollination is the most crucial part of the regeneration process. Methods to control pollination include: bagging individ- ual plants, growing accessions in isolation, growing barrier crops, growing under\n\n189\n\nFigure 8.2 Field view of growing pigeonpea germplasm under insect-proof cages for regeneration."}


created_at: 2025-01-03 06:40:47
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 4b3220f5-94a8-4ef6-a825-4a3c745cda15
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\BC_Pigeonpea_183-202_2013.pdf", "chroma:document": "189\n\nFigure 8.2 Field view of growing pigeonpea germplasm under insect-proof cages for regeneration.\n\ninsect-proof cages, \u2018polyhouses\u2019, etc. But the most common procedure is covering individual plants using muslin cloth bags and growing accessions under insect-proof cages (Figure 8.2). The pollination control method of growing accessions under insect-proof cages was three times cheaper than the traditional method of bagging individual plants. However, the regeneration cost depends largely on method of pol- lination control, availability and cost of materials in local markets, labour wages, quantity of seed required per accession in one cycle of regeneration, type of material to be regenerated, etc. Due to increased seed yield per plant, we can minimize the regeneration frequency (Reddy, Upadhyaya, Reddy, & Gowda, 2006). Minimizing the regeneration requirement of each accession can reduce maintenance costs of the total collection. Therefore, pigeonpea germplasm accessions are grown under insect-proof cages for regeneration at ICRISAT Research Farm, Patancheru, dur- ing the rainy season. In order to minimize the damage to the nylon net used for the cages by reducing the vegetative growth, particularly plant height, accessions are sown later during the crop season, during the first week of August, in Alfisol fields. Remanandan, Sastry, and Mengesha Melak (1988) reported that sowing pigeonpea in Alfisols close to the shortest day of the year results in reduced plant height. Each accession is grown on a single 9-m-long ridge, spaced 75 cm apart. Plant to plant spacing is 25 cm, accommodating about 72 plants in 36 hills. Adequate plant pro- tection measures are taken inside the cage to reduce damage by pests and diseases.\n\n190\n\nAt maturity, individual plants are harvested and an equal quantity of seeds from each plant is bulked to reconstitute the accession.\n\n8.6.1 Regeneration of Wild Pigeonpea Germplasm"}


created_at: 2025-01-03 06:40:47
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: f7b06b52-e636-4bc9-9ae8-067d40ce77f6
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\BC_Pigeonpea_183-202_2013.pdf", "chroma:document": "190\n\nAt maturity, individual plants are harvested and an equal quantity of seeds from each plant is bulked to reconstitute the accession.\n\n8.6.1 Regeneration of Wild Pigeonpea Germplasm\n\nSeeds of almost all species require scarification by making a small cut to the seed coat to improve water absorption and germination. Seeds are treated with Thiram or any other appropriate fungicide and initially sown in small cups or pots and trans- planted to the field when they have three to four leaves. Climbers, such as C. albi- cans, C. mollis and C. crassus, are provided support using bamboo sticks or iron poles. At maturity, pods from individual plants are harvested and threshed, and seeds are cleaned. An equal quantity of seed from each plant is bulked to reconstitute an accession (Upadhyaya & Gowda, 2009).\n\n8.6.2 Documentation\n\nAll information, such as method of viability test, initial viability, seed quantity, as well as the year of regeneration, pollination control method used, regeneration site, accession, field number, accession verification, number of plants harvested and seed quantity obtained are recorded and documented (Upadhyaya & Gowda, 2009).\n\n8.7 Use of Germplasm in Crop Improvement\n\nThe small subsets, such as core and mini-core collections, are now international pub- lic goods and used by scientists globally. Many national programmes have shown interest in the mini-core collection and ICRISAT has supplied 19 sets of pigeonpea mini-core to National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS) in India (17), UAE (1) and USA (1). Using the mini-core collection, scientists at ICRISAT and NARS part- ners have identified several promising sources for agronomic, nutritional, biotic and abiotic traits (Upadhyaya, Dronavalli, Gowda, & Singh, 2012).\n\n8.7.1 Biotic Stresses\n\n8.7.1.1 Resistance to Diseases"}


created_at: 2025-01-03 06:40:47
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 78b60845-1a20-404e-8238-0e984cc891f0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\BC_Pigeonpea_183-202_2013.pdf", "chroma:document": "8.7.1 Biotic Stresses\n\n8.7.1.1 Resistance to Diseases\n\nEvaluation of a mini-core collection has resulted in the identification of six acces- sions (ICP 6739, ICP 8860, ICP 11015, ICP 13304, ICP 14638 and ICP 14819) resistant to FW (Sharma et al., 2012) and 24 accessions (ICP 3451, ICP 6739, ICP 6845, ICP 7869, ICP 8152, ICP 8860, ICP 9045, ICP 11015, ICP 11059, ICP 11230 and others) resistant to SMD (Sharma et al., 2012).\n\n8.7.1.2 Resistance to Insects\n\nEvaluation of a mini-core collection has resulted in the identification of 11 acces- sions (ICP 7, ICP 655, ICP 772, ICP 1071, ICP 3046, ICP 4575, ICP 6128, ICP\n\n191\n\n8860, ICP 12142, ICP 14471 and ICP 14701) reported moderately resistant to pod borer (damage rating 5.0 as compared to 9.0 in ICPL 87) under unprotected con- ditions, and also had no wilt incidence as compared to 38.2% wilt in ICP 8266 (ICRISAT Archival Report, 2010).\n\n8.7.2 Abiotic Stresses\n\n8.7.2.1 Waterlogging\n\nEvaluation of a pigeonpea mini-core collection resulted in the identification of 23 accessions (ICP 1279, ICP 4575, ICP 5142, ICP 6370, ICP 6992, ICP 7057 and others) recorded tolerant to waterlogging conditions (Krishnamurthy, Upadhyaya, Saxena, & Vadez, 2011).\n\n8.7.2.2 Salinity\n\nEvaluation of a pigeonpea mini-core collection resulted in the identification of 16 accessions (ICP 2746, ICP 3046, ICP 6815, ICP 7260, ICP 7426, ICP 7803, ICP 8860 and others) selected for tolerance to salinity (Srivastava, Vadez, Upadhyaya, & Saxena, 2006).\n\n8.7.3 Agronomic Traits"}


created_at: 2025-01-03 06:40:47
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 1fcc4ea1-b485-4973-8da2-a38adeeec854
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\BC_Pigeonpea_183-202_2013.pdf", "chroma:document": "8.7.2.2 Salinity\n\nEvaluation of a pigeonpea mini-core collection resulted in the identification of 16 accessions (ICP 2746, ICP 3046, ICP 6815, ICP 7260, ICP 7426, ICP 7803, ICP 8860 and others) selected for tolerance to salinity (Srivastava, Vadez, Upadhyaya, & Saxena, 2006).\n\n8.7.3 Agronomic Traits\n\nEvaluation of a pigeonpea mini-core collection resulted in the identification of eight accessions (ICP 1156, ICP 9336, ICP 14471, ICP 14832, ICP 14900, ICP 14903, ICP 15068 and ICP 16309) for early flowering (<85 days); three accessions (ICP 13139, ICP 13359 and ICP 14976) for large seed size (>15g/100 seed); one accession (ICP 8860) for more primary branches (>29) and three accessions (ICP 4167, ICP 8602 and ICP 11230) for high pod number per plant (>200 pods/plant) (Upadhyaya, Yadav, Dronavalli, Gowda, & Singh, 2010).\n\n8.7.4 Nutritional Traits\n\nEvaluation of a pigeonpea mini-core collection resulted in the identification of six accessions (ICP 4575, ICP 7426, ICP 8266, ICP 11823, ICP 12515 and ICP 12680) for high seed protein (>24%); eight accessions (ICP 4029, ICP 6929, ICP 6992, ICP 7076, ICP 10397, ICP 11690, ICP 12298 and ICP 12515) for high seed iron (>40 ppm) and four accessions (ICP 2698, ICP 11267, ICP 14444 and ICP 14976) for high seed zinc (>40 ppm).\n\n8.8 Limitations in Germplasm Use\n\nVery few germplasm accessions (<1%) have been used by plant breeders in crop improvement programmes (Upadhyaya, 2008). A large gap exists between availability\n\n192"}


created_at: 2025-01-03 06:40:47
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 8dc3904a-46ef-4a8d-bac9-9aa1224931a8
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\BC_Pigeonpea_183-202_2013.pdf", "chroma:document": "8.8 Limitations in Germplasm Use\n\nVery few germplasm accessions (<1%) have been used by plant breeders in crop improvement programmes (Upadhyaya, 2008). A large gap exists between availability\n\n192\n\nand actual utilization of the germplasm. This was true both in the international pro- grammes (CGIAR institutes) as well as in the national programmes. Extensive use of fewer and closely related parents in crop improvement could result in vulnera- bility of cultivars to pests and diseases. The main reason for low use of germplasm in crop improvement programmes is the lack of information on the large number of accessions, particularly for traits of economic importance, which display a great deal of genotype\u00d7environment interaction and require multilocation evaluation. To overcome the difficulties with large collections, ICRISAT scientists have developed a \u2018core collection\u2019 consisting of 1290 accessions (about 10% of entire collection), representing the genetic variability of the entire collection (Reddy et al., 2005)."}


created_at: 2025-01-03 06:40:47
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 7c92ad48-bf85-44f0-8a02-cac4c8274cb4
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\BC_Pigeonpea_183-202_2013.pdf", "chroma:document": "When the entire collection is over 10,000 accessions, developing a core collection will not solve the problem of low use of germplasm, as even the size of the core col- lection would be unwieldy for meaningful evaluation and convenient exploitation. To overcome this, a seminal two-stage strategy was followed. The first stage involves developing a representative core collection (about 10%) from the entire collection using all the available information on origin, geographical distribution, and charac- terization and evaluation data of accessions. The second stage involves evaluation of the core collection for various morphological, agronomic and quality traits, and selecting a further subset of about 10% accessions from the core collection. Thus, the mini-core collection contains 10% of the core or approximately 1% of the entire collection and represents the diversity of the entire collection (Upadhyaya & Ortiz, 2001). In pigeonpea, a mini-core collection consisting of 146 accessions was consti- tuted by evaluating a core collection of 1290 accessions for 34 morpho-agronomic traits (Upadhyaya, Reddy, Gowda, Reddy, & Singh, 2006). Due to their greatly reduced size, mini-core collections provide an easy access to the germplasm collec- tions and scientists can evaluate the mini-core collection easily and economically for traits of economic importance.\n\n8.9 Germplasm Enhancement Through Wide Crosses"}


created_at: 2025-01-03 06:40:47
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 177b0916-5694-4289-9ab8-e38ab38fcadd
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\BC_Pigeonpea_183-202_2013.pdf", "chroma:document": "8.9 Germplasm Enhancement Through Wide Crosses\n\nNarrow genetic diversity in cultivated germplasm has hampered the effective utili- zation of conventional breeding as well as development and utilization of genomic tools, resulting in pigeonpea being often referred to as an \u2018orphan crop legume\u2019. A number of wild Cajanus species, especially those from the secondary gene pool which are cross-compatible with cultivated pigeonpea, have been used for the genetic improvement of pigeonpea. The most significant achievement is the develop- ment of unique cytoplasmic nuclear male sterility systems (CMS). The CMS sys- tems have been developed with cytoplasm derived from cultivated and wild Cajanus species. The A1 cytoplasm is derived from C. sericeus (Ariyanayagam, Nageshwara, & Zaveri, 1995). The CMS lines derived from this source are temperature sensitive and the male sterile lines restore fertility under low temperature conditions (Saxena, 2005). The A2 cytoplasm derived from C. scarabaeoides (Saxena & Kumar, 2003; Tikka, Parmar, & Chauhan, 1997) is a stable source of CMS but the fertility res- toration (fr) is not consistent across environments, making it unsuitable for hybrid\n\n193"}


created_at: 2025-01-03 06:40:47
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: dd03f003-53f6-48e8-a932-6c1e6be213c5
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\BC_Pigeonpea_183-202_2013.pdf", "chroma:document": "193\n\nseed production. A3 cytoplasm derived from C. volubilis (Wanjari, Patil, Manapure, Manjaya, & Manish, 2001) has a poor-quality fr system. The A4 cytoplasm derived from C. cajanifolius (Saxena et al., 2005) is stable across environments with a good fr system and has been used to develop the world\u2019s first commercial pigeonpea hybrid, ICPH 2671 (Saxena et al., 2013). The A5 cytoplasm derived from C. cajan (Mallikarjuna & Saxena, 2005) is still under development. The A6 cytoplasm has been derived from C. lineatus and at present this CMS source is in BC5F1 generation with a perfect male sterility maintenance system available (Saxena, Sultana et al., 2010). The studies on A7 CMS system derived from C. platycarpus are in progress. Recently, the A8 CMS system derived from C. reticulatus has also been developed, but the detailed studies on this CMS system are in progress at ICRISAT."}


created_at: 2025-01-03 06:40:47
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 05c2f39e-2a31-4707-927b-1e91977c9bea
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\BC_Pigeonpea_183-202_2013.pdf", "chroma:document": "Wild Cajanus species, especially, C. scarabaeoides, C. acutifolius, C. platycar- pus, C. reticulates, C. sericeus and C. albicans have been reported to have resistance to pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Rao, Reddy, & Bramel, 2003; Sharma, Sujana, & Rao, 2009; Sujana, Sharma, & Rao, 2008). At ICRISAT, utilization of C. acuti- folius as the pollen parent has resulted in the development of advanced generation population having resistance to pod borer (Mallikarjuna, Sharma, & Upadhyaya, 2007), variation in seed colour and high seed weight. Evaluation of wild Cajanus species has identified accessions having resistance to Alternaria blight (Sharma, Kannaiyan, & Saxena, 1987), Phytophthora blight (Rao et al., 2003), sterility mosaic virus (Kulkarni et al., 2003; Rao et al., 2003), pod fly (Rao et al., 2003; Saxena et al., 1990), pod fly and wasps (Sharma, Pampapathy, & Reddy, 2003), root-knot nema- todes (Rao et al., 2003; Sharma, 1995; Sharma, Remanandan, & Jain, 1993; Sharma, Remanandan, & McDonald, 1993), and tolerance to salinity (Rao et al., 2003; Srivastava et al., 2006; Subbarao, 1988; Subbarao, Johansen, Jana, & Rao, 1991), drought (Rao et al., 2003), and photoperiod insensitivity (Rao et al., 2003)."}


created_at: 2025-01-03 06:40:47
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 1e62fb6c-2107-4e69-b993-68244e630b9f
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\BC_Pigeonpea_183-202_2013.pdf", "chroma:document": "Besides for CMS systems and as resistant/tolerant sources for biotic/abi- otic stresses, utilization of wild Cajanus species has also contributed significantly towards the improvement of agronomic performance and nutritional quality of cul- tivated pigeonpea. Some wild Cajanus species, namely C. scarabaeoides, C. seri- ceus, C. albicans, C. crassus, C. platycarpus and C. cajanifolius, have higher seed protein content (average 28.3%) compared to pigeonpea cultivars (24.6%) (Singh & Jambunathan, 1981). A high protein line, ICPL 87162, was developed from the cross C. cajan\u00d7C. scarabaeoides (Reddy et al., 1997). This line contains 30\u201334% protein content compared to the control cultivar (23% protein). Breeding lines with high pro- tein content have also been developed from C. sericeus, C. albicans and C. scar- abaeoides. Utilization of wild Cajanus species has resulted in the development of several lines, such as HPL 2, HPL 7, HPL 40 and HPL 51, having high protein and high seed weight (Saxena, Faris, & Kumar, 1987). Recently, scientists at ICRISAT have generated segregants with high seed weight from the crosses between cultivated pigeonpea and C. acutifolius. Using wild Cajanus species, viable hybrids have been produced between pigeonpea and C. platycarpus (Mallikarjuna & Moss, 1995), C. reticulatus var. grandifolius (Reddy, Kameswara Rao, & Saxena, 2001), C. acuti- folius (Mallikarjuna & Saxena, 2002) and C. albicans (Subbarao, Johansen, Kumar Rao, & Jana, 1990).\n\n194\n\n8.10 Pigeonpea Genomic Resources"}


created_at: 2025-01-03 06:40:47
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 829f42ff-be6b-4901-9571-671586318c00
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\BC_Pigeonpea_183-202_2013.pdf", "chroma:document": "194\n\n8.10 Pigeonpea Genomic Resources\n\nPigeonpea breeders have developed varieties with several attributes with a major focus on productivity traits and as a result diversity has been lost in the elite gene pool; subsequently yield levels in pigeonpea have been stagnant during the last six decades. In order to meet future challenges and to enhance the yield levels, genom- ics interventions are required to identify the genes or quantitative trait loci (QTLs) responsible for resistance or tolerance to various economically important traits. A large amount of genomic and genetic resources have been developed by ICRISAT in collaboration with partners and have regularly been used in accelerating the genom- ics and breeding applications to increase the efficiency of pigeonpea improvement programmes. ICRISAT scientists have developed a number of marker systems and genetic linkage maps and identified marker-trait associations for a few important traits. Recently complete genome sequencing of pigeonpea has been accomplished (Varshney et al., 2012).\n\n8.10.1 Mapping Populations\n\nGenetic diversity among elite pigeonpea cultivars is very low (Saxena, Sultana et al., 2010) and hence selection of crossing parents is the most crucial step. In order to select a diverse set of parents, simple sequence repeats (SSRs) genotyping of elite cultivars was performed and a number of intraspecific biparental mapping popula- tions, segregating for FW, SMD and fr have been developed (Saxena, Prathima et al., 2010; Saxena, Saxena, Kumar, Hoisington, & Varshney, 2010). One interspecific [ICP 28 (C. cajan)\u00d7ICPW 94 (C. scarabaeoides)] mapping population has also been developed (Saxena et al., 2012).\n\n8.10.2 Molecular Markers"}


created_at: 2025-01-03 06:40:47
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 7ddb6d51-a9bb-4153-adc7-9d767095150a
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\BC_Pigeonpea_183-202_2013.pdf", "chroma:document": "8.10.2 Molecular Markers\n\nRecently several marker systems have been developed and used in pigeonpea (Table 8.4). Prior to PCR technologies, restriction fragment length polymor- phisms (RFLPs) (Sivaramakrishnan, Seetha, & Reddy, 2002), protein isoforms and phenotypes were used. However, these markers present challenges for large- scale throughput because they are labour intensive, require large amounts of start- ing material (genomic DNA or protein) and are less informative as compared to the modern marker systems. The vast majority of markers now used for pigeonpea are PCR based, with the majority being microsatellite markers (SSR) (Bohra et al., 2011; Burns, Edwards, Newbury, Ford-Lloyd, & Baggott, 2001; Odeny et al., 2007; Saxena, Prathima et al., 2010; Saxena, Saxena, Kumar et al., 2010; Saxena, Saxena, & Varshney, 2010). Other potential marker systems, such as random amplified pol- ymorphic DNA (RAPD) markers (Malviya & Yadav, 2010), single strand confor- mation polymorphisms (SSCPs) (Kudapa et al., 2012), amplified fragment length polymorphisms (AFLPs) (Panguluri, Janaiah, Govil, Kumar, & Sharma, 2006) and DArT (Yang et al., 2006, 2011) are also in use. By using an SSR-enriched library, several genomic DNA libraries enriched for di- and tri-nucleotide repeat motifs\n\n195\n\nTable 8.4 Available Genomic Resources in Pigeonpea\n\nResource\n\nReferences\n\nSimple sequence repeats\n\n29,000\n\nRaju et al. (2010), Saxena, Sultana et al. (2010), Bohra et al. (2011), Dutta et al. (2011) and Varshney et al. (2012)\n\nSingle nucleotide polymorphisms\n\n35,000\n\nSaxena et al. (2012) and Varshney\n\n(SNPs)\n\net al. (2012)\n\nGoldenGate assays KASPar assays Single feature polymorphisms (SFPs) Diversity arrays technology (DArT)\n\n768 SNPs 1616 SNPs 1131 15,360\n\nUnpublished Saxena et al. (2012) Saxena et al. (2011) Yang et al. (2011)\n\nmarkers Sanger ESTs\n\n~20,000\n\nRaju et al. (2010) and Dubey et al.\n\n(2011)\n\n454/FLX reads Tentative unique sequences (TUSs) Illumina/454 reads (million reads)"}


created_at: 2025-01-03 06:40:47
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: d9e50712-fa8c-41dc-b52e-ffc83d67b230
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\BC_Pigeonpea_183-202_2013.pdf", "chroma:document": "Single nucleotide polymorphisms\n\n35,000\n\nSaxena et al. (2012) and Varshney\n\n(SNPs)\n\net al. (2012)\n\nGoldenGate assays KASPar assays Single feature polymorphisms (SFPs) Diversity arrays technology (DArT)\n\n768 SNPs 1616 SNPs 1131 15,360\n\nUnpublished Saxena et al. (2012) Saxena et al. (2011) Yang et al. (2011)\n\nmarkers Sanger ESTs\n\n~20,000\n\nRaju et al. (2010) and Dubey et al.\n\n(2011)\n\n454/FLX reads Tentative unique sequences (TUSs) Illumina/454 reads (million reads)\n\n496,705 21,432 >160\n\nDubey et al. (2011) Dubey et al. (2011) Dubey et al. (2011), Dutta et al.\n\n(2011) and Kudapa et al. (2012)"}


created_at: 2025-01-03 06:40:47
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 157a58ed-e390-4af1-b0fd-9143fb1e2128
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\BC_Pigeonpea_183-202_2013.pdf", "chroma:document": "496,705 21,432 >160\n\nDubey et al. (2011) Dubey et al. (2011) Dubey et al. (2011), Dutta et al.\n\n(2011) and Kudapa et al. (2012)\n\n(CT, TG, AG, AAG, TCG, etc.) were also generated (Burns et al., 2001; Odeny et al., 2007; Saxena, Saxena, & Varshney, 2010). This approach involving SSR marker development has provided only 36 SSRs; however, subsequently SSRs were devel- oped from bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) end sequences (BESs) and found more effective. SSR development from BAC ends avoids the need for prior infor- mation about the repeat motifs within a species and offers genome-wide coverage. After examining 87,590 pigeonpea BESs, a total of 18,149 SSRs were identified in 14,001 BESs representing 6590 BAC clones. Excluding the mononucleotide repeats, a total of 3072 primer pairs were synthesized and tested (Bohra et al., 2011). The recent advent of affordable high-throughput technology for single nucleotide poly- morphisms (SNPs), together with the reduction in sequencing costs, is resulting in a shift to SNP markers for trait mapping and association studies (Thudi, Li, Jackson, May, & Varshney, 2012). It is expected that within a couple of years the marker- based studies will be dominated by SNP markers. Three approaches were used for the identification of SNPs in pigeonpea. In the first approach, Illumina sequencing was carried out on parental genotypes of mapping populations of pigeonpea. RNA sequencing of 12 pigeonpea genotypes resulted in 128.9 million reads for pigeon- pea (Kudapa et al., 2012). Alignment of these short reads onto transcriptome assem- bly (TA) has provided a large number of SNPs. The second approach, allele-specific sequencing of parental genotypes of the reference mapping population of pigeonpea using conserved orthologous sequence (COS) markers, has provided 768 SNPs for pigeonpea (Table 8.4). As a result, a large number of SNPs has become available for pigeonpea and cost-effective genotyping platforms have been developed.\n\n196"}


created_at: 2025-01-03 06:40:47
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 176065b3-0746-4c43-a76c-3df7f6a9ee70
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\BC_Pigeonpea_183-202_2013.pdf", "chroma:document": "196\n\n8.10.3 Genotyping the Germplasm Collection\n\nA composite collection of 1000 accessions was developed and profiled using 20 SSR markers. Analysis of molecular data for 952 accessions detected 197 alleles, of which 115 were rare and 82 common. Gene diversity varied from 0.002 to 0.726. There were 60 group-specific unique alleles in wild types and 64 in cultivated. Among the cultivated accessions, 37 unique alleles were found in NDT types. Geographically, 32 unique alleles were found in Asia 4 (southern Indian provinces, Maldives and Sri Lanka). Only two alleles differentiated Africa from other regions. Wild and cultivated types shared 73 alleles, DT (determinate) and NDT shared 10, DT and wild shared 4, and the NDT and wild shared 20 alleles. Wild types as a group were genetically more diverse than cultivated types. NDT types were more diverse than the other two groups based on flowering pattern (DT and SDT: semi- determinate). Reference sets consisting of the 300 most diverse accessions based on SSR markers, qualitative traits, quantitative traits and their combinations were formed and compared for allelic richness and diversity. A reference set based on SSR data captured 187 (95%) of the 197 alleles of the composite collection. Another ref- erence set based on qualitative traits captured 87% of the alleles of the composite set. This demonstrates that both SSR markers and qualitative traits were equally effi- cient in capturing the allelic richness and diversity in the reference sets (Upadhyaya et al., 2008).\n\n8.10.4 Linkage Maps and Trait Mapping"}


created_at: 2025-01-03 06:40:47
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: ca197401-542a-42c8-9f39-bff34e6b929d
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\BC_Pigeonpea_183-202_2013.pdf", "chroma:document": "8.10.4 Linkage Maps and Trait Mapping\n\nThe first generation pigeonpea linkage map or reference map was developed using DArT markers for an interspecific mapping population (ICP 28\u00d7ICPW 94) of 79 F2 individuals. The map is available in male and female forms, a total of 121 unique DArT maternal markers were placed on the maternal linkage map and 166 unique DArT paternal markers were placed on the paternal linkage map. The length of these two maps covered 437.3 cM and 648.8 cM, respectively (Yang et al., 2011). Another version of reference linkage map consisted of 239 SSR markers and spans 930.90 cM (Bohra et al., 2011). An interspecific mapping population (ICP 28\u00d7ICPW 94) rel- atively bigger in size (167 F2s) was used for developing a comprehensive genetic map comprising 875 SNP loci (Saxena et al., 2012). The total length of this map was 967.03 cM with an average marker distance of 1.11 cM. This linkage map was a con- siderable improvement over the previous pigeonpea genetic linkage maps using SSR and DArT markers.\n\nConstruction of genetic maps for intraspecific mapping populations has also been performed and a total of six SSR-based intraspecific genetic maps were developed by using six F2 mapping populations (Bohra et al., 2012; Gnanesh et al., 2011). Furthermore, all six intraspecific genetic maps were joined together into a single consensus genetic map providing map positions to a total of 339 SSR markers at map coverage of 1059 cM (Bohra et al., 2012). A few trait association efforts have been reported in pigeonpea for SMD and fr by using F2 mapping populations. For instance, six QTLs explaining phenotypic variations in the range of 8.3\u201324.72%\n\n197\n\n(Gnanesh et al., 2011) for SMD and a total of four large effect QTLs explaining up to 24% of phenotypic variations for fr in pigeonpea (Bohra et al., 2012) were identified.\n\n8.10.5 Transcriptomic Resources"}


created_at: 2025-01-03 06:40:47
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: ac599b7b-86d1-42d8-8584-c94119f8aa15
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\BC_Pigeonpea_183-202_2013.pdf", "chroma:document": "197\n\n(Gnanesh et al., 2011) for SMD and a total of four large effect QTLs explaining up to 24% of phenotypic variations for fr in pigeonpea (Bohra et al., 2012) were identified.\n\n8.10.5 Transcriptomic Resources\n\nTo characterize the pigeonpea transcriptome, two NGS technologies, namely 454- and Illumina together with Sanger sequencing technology have been used. By using Sanger sequencing technology on FW and SMD, challenged cDNA libraries for pigeonpea 9888 expressed sequence tags (ESTs) were developed (Raju et al., 2010). To improve these transcriptomic resources further, 454/FLX sequencing was under- taken on normalized and pooled RNA samples collected from >20 tissues, gener- ating 494,353 transcript reads for pigeonpea (Dubey et al., 2011). Cluster analysis of these transcript reads with Sanger ESTs generated at ICRISAT, as well as those available in the public domain, provided the first transcript assembly (TA) of pigeon- pea (CcTA v1) with 127,754 transcriptional units (Dubey et al., 2011). 494,353 454/ FLX transcript reads generated from Asha genotype and 128.9 million Illumina reads generated from 12 genotypes were analysed together with 18,353 Sanger ESTs and 1.696 million 454/FLX transcript reads (Dutta et al., 2011) with improved algo- rithms. As a result, an improved TA in pigeonpea referred to as CcTA v2, comprising 21,434 contigs, has been developed (Kudapa et al., 2012) (Table 8.4).\n\n8.10.6 Genome Sequence\n\nNGS (Illumina) was used to generate 237.2 Gbp of sequence that, along with Sanger- based BAC-end sequences and a genetic map, was assembled into scaffolds repre- senting about 73% (605.78 Mb) of the 833 Mbp pigeonpea genome size. Genome analysis has resulted in the identification of 48,680 pigeonpea genes. High levels of synteny were observed between pigeonpea and soybean as well as between pigeon- pea and Medicago truncatula and Lotus japonicas."}


created_at: 2025-01-03 06:40:47
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 95676ce3-14f8-4336-957a-245dcf7488ed
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\BC_Pigeonpea_183-202_2013.pdf", "chroma:document": "8.10.6 Genome Sequence\n\nNGS (Illumina) was used to generate 237.2 Gbp of sequence that, along with Sanger- based BAC-end sequences and a genetic map, was assembled into scaffolds repre- senting about 73% (605.78 Mb) of the 833 Mbp pigeonpea genome size. Genome analysis has resulted in the identification of 48,680 pigeonpea genes. High levels of synteny were observed between pigeonpea and soybean as well as between pigeon- pea and Medicago truncatula and Lotus japonicas.\n\nThe genome sequence was also searched for the presence of tandem repeats and a total of 23,410 SSR primers were designed. Transcript reads from 12 differ- ent pigeonpea genotypes were aligned with the genome assembly for the identifica- tion of SNPs. As a result 28,104 novel SNPs were identified across 12 genotypes (Varshney et al., 2012). These developed resources will be used for germplasm char- acterization and to facilitate the identification of the genetic basis of important traits.\n\n8.11 Conclusions\n\nThe narrow genetic base of pigeonpea, coupled with its susceptibility to a number of biotic and abiotic stresses, necessitates the use of diverse genetic resources for its improvement. Though a large number of germplasm accessions are conserved in different gene banks globally, only a small fraction (<1%) has been used in crop\n\n198"}


created_at: 2025-01-03 06:40:47
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: ae6c3434-04d2-425e-8500-67713fd030de
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\BC_Pigeonpea_183-202_2013.pdf", "chroma:document": "8.11 Conclusions\n\nThe narrow genetic base of pigeonpea, coupled with its susceptibility to a number of biotic and abiotic stresses, necessitates the use of diverse genetic resources for its improvement. Though a large number of germplasm accessions are conserved in different gene banks globally, only a small fraction (<1%) has been used in crop\n\n198\n\nimprovement programmes. The availability of trait-specific germplasm accessions will provide an opportunity for breeders to use new sources of variations in develop- ing new cultivars with a broad genetic base. The utilization of wild Cajanus species has contributed significantly to the genetic enhancement of pigeonpea by provid- ing resistance/tolerance to diseases, insect pests and drought, as well as good agro- nomic traits. The major contribution of wild relatives includes the development of diverse and unique CMS systems for pigeonpea improvement. The availability of rich genomic resources including genome sequence will further accelerate marker- assisted breeding for pigeonpea improvement.\n\nReferences\n\nAriyanayagam, R. P., Nageshwara, A., & Zaveri, P. P. (1995). Cytoplasmic genic male sterility\n\nin interspecific matings of pigeonpea. Crop Science, 35, 981\u2013985.\n\nBohra, A., Dubey, A., Saxena, R. K., Penmetsa, R. V., Poornima, K. N., Kumar, N., et al. (2011). Analysis of BAC-end sequences (BESs) and development of BES-SSR markers for genetic mapping and hybrid purity assessment in pigeonpea (Cajanus spp.). BMC Plant Biology, 11, 56.\n\nBohra, A., Saxena, R. K., Gnanesh, B. N., Saxena, K. B., Byregowda, M., Rathore, A., et al. (2012). An intra-specific consensus genetic map of pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millspaugh] derived from six mapping populations. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 125, 1325\u20131338."}


created_at: 2025-01-03 06:40:47
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: df9011fd-7187-4d81-97f1-dac5206ddaeb
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\BC_Pigeonpea_183-202_2013.pdf", "chroma:document": "Bohra, A., Saxena, R. K., Gnanesh, B. N., Saxena, K. B., Byregowda, M., Rathore, A., et al. (2012). An intra-specific consensus genetic map of pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millspaugh] derived from six mapping populations. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 125, 1325\u20131338.\n\nBurns, M. J., Edwards, K. J., Newbury, H. J., Ford-Lloyd, B. V., & Baggott, C. D. (2001). Development of simple sequence repeat (SSR) markers for the assessment of gene flow and genetic diversity in pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan). Molecular Ecology Notes, 1, 283\u2013285.\n\nDe, D. N. (1974). Pigeonpea. In J. Hutchinson (Ed.), Evolutionary studies in world crops: diversity and change in the Indian subcontinent (pp. 79\u201387). London, UK: Cambridge University.\n\nDubey, A., Farmer, A., Schlueter, J., Cannon, S., Abernathy, B., Tuteja, R., et al. (2011). Defining the transcriptome assembly and its use for genome dynamics and transcriptome profiling studies in pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan L.). DNA Research, 18, 153\u2013164.\n\nDutta, S., Kumawat, G., Singh, B. P., Gupta, D. K., Singh, S., Dogra, V., et al. (2011). Development of genic-SSR markers by deep transcriptome sequencing in pigeonpea [Cajanus Cajan (L.) Millspaugh]. BMC Plant Biology, 11, 17.\n\nFAOSTAT, (2010). The second report on the state of the world\u2019s plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. Rome, Italy: Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (CGRFA), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). ISBN 978-92-5-106534-172.\n\nGnanesh, B. N., Bohra, A., Sharma, M., Byregowda, M., Pande, S., Wesley, V., et al. (2011). Genetic mapping and quantitative trait locus analysis of resistance to sterility mosaic dis- ease in pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.]. Field Crops Research, 123, 53\u201361.\n\nHillocks, R. J., Minja, E., Nahdy, M. S., & Subrahmanyam, P. (2000). Diseases and pests of\n\npigeonpea in eastern Africa. International Journal of Pest Management, 46, 7\u201318."}


created_at: 2025-01-03 06:40:47
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 9afe09f2-3d31-4109-b4ba-509bfea56334
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\BC_Pigeonpea_183-202_2013.pdf", "chroma:document": "Gnanesh, B. N., Bohra, A., Sharma, M., Byregowda, M., Pande, S., Wesley, V., et al. (2011). Genetic mapping and quantitative trait locus analysis of resistance to sterility mosaic dis- ease in pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.]. Field Crops Research, 123, 53\u201361.\n\nHillocks, R. J., Minja, E., Nahdy, M. S., & Subrahmanyam, P. (2000). Diseases and pests of\n\npigeonpea in eastern Africa. International Journal of Pest Management, 46, 7\u201318.\n\nIBPGR, (1993)., & ICRISAT, Descriptors for pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.]. Patancheru, India/Rome, Italy: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics/International Board for Plant Genetic Resources.\n\n199\n\nICRISAT Archival Report. (2010). <http://intranet/ddg/Admin%20Pages2009/Archival_\n\nReport_2010.aspx>\n\nKrishnamurthy, L., Upadhyaya, H. D., Saxena, K. B., & Vadez, V. (2011). Variation for tem- porary water logging response within the mini core pigeonpea germplasm. Journal of Agricultural Science, 10, 1\u20138.\n\nKudapa, H., Bharti, A. K., Cannon, S. B., Farmer, A. D., Mulaosmanovic, B., Kramer, R., et al. (2012). A comprehensive transcriptome assembly of pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan) using sanger and second-generation sequencing platforms. Molecular Plant, 5, 1020\u20131028.\n\nKulkarni, N. K., Reddy, A. S., Lava Kumar, P., Vijaynarasimha, J., Rangaswamy, K. T., Muniyappa, V., et al. (2003). Broad-based resistance to pigeonpea sterility mosaic disease in accessions of Cajanus scarabaeoides (L.) Benth. Indian Journal of Plant Protection, 31, 6\u201311.\n\nMallikarjuna, N., & Moss, J. P. (1995). Production of hybrids between Cajanus platycarpus\n\nand Cajanus cajan. Euphytica, 83(1), 43\u201346.\n\nMallikarjuna, N., & Saxena, K. B. (2002). Production of hybrids between Cajanus acutifolius\n\nand C.cajan. Euphytica, 124(1), 107\u2013110.\n\nMallikarjuna, N., & Saxena, K. B. (2005). A new cytoplasmic male-sterility system derived\n\nfrom cultivated pigeonpea cytoplasm. Euphytica, 142(1\u20132), 143\u2013148."}


created_at: 2025-01-03 06:40:47
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 6c3db9e2-83fd-4780-9836-af6636171a6f
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\BC_Pigeonpea_183-202_2013.pdf", "chroma:document": "Mallikarjuna, N., & Moss, J. P. (1995). Production of hybrids between Cajanus platycarpus\n\nand Cajanus cajan. Euphytica, 83(1), 43\u201346.\n\nMallikarjuna, N., & Saxena, K. B. (2002). Production of hybrids between Cajanus acutifolius\n\nand C.cajan. Euphytica, 124(1), 107\u2013110.\n\nMallikarjuna, N., & Saxena, K. B. (2005). A new cytoplasmic male-sterility system derived\n\nfrom cultivated pigeonpea cytoplasm. Euphytica, 142(1\u20132), 143\u2013148.\n\nMallikarjuna, N., Sharma, H. C., & Upadhyaya, H. D. (2007). Exploitation of wild relatives of pigeonpea and chickpea for resistance to Helicoverpa armigera. SAT eJournal, 3(1), 4. Malviya, N., & Yadav, D. (2010). RAPD analysis among pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.).] cultivars for their genetic diversity. Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology Journal, GEBJ-1, 1\u20139.\n\nOdeny, D. A. (2007). The potential of pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.) in Africa.\n\nNatural Resources Forum, 297\u2013305.\n\nOdeny, D. A., Jayashree, B., Ferguson, M., Hoisington, D., Crouch, J., & Gebhardt, C. (2007). Development characterization and utilization of microsatellite markers in pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.]. Plant Breeding, 126, 130\u2013137.\n\nPanguluri, S. K., Janaiah, K., Govil, J. N., Kumar, P. A., & Sharma, P. C. (2006). AFLP fin- ger printing in pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.) and its wild relatives. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 53, 523\u2013531.\n\nPlukenet, L. (1692). Phytographia. In F. Singh & D. L. Oswalt (Eds.), Pigeonpea botany and production practices. Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics. Skills Development Series No. 9 (1992).\n\nRaju, N. L., Gnanesh, B. N., Lekha, P. T., Balaji, J., Pande, S., Byregowda, M., et al. (2010). The first set of EST resource for gene discovery and marker development in pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan L.). BMC Plant Biology, 10, 45."}


created_at: 2025-01-03 06:40:47
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 99a2eda5-9606-48b3-b64d-fe2016c37946
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\BC_Pigeonpea_183-202_2013.pdf", "chroma:document": "Plukenet, L. (1692). Phytographia. In F. Singh & D. L. Oswalt (Eds.), Pigeonpea botany and production practices. Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics. Skills Development Series No. 9 (1992).\n\nRaju, N. L., Gnanesh, B. N., Lekha, P. T., Balaji, J., Pande, S., Byregowda, M., et al. (2010). The first set of EST resource for gene discovery and marker development in pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan L.). BMC Plant Biology, 10, 45.\n\nRao, N. K., Reddy, L. J., & Bramel, P. J. (2003). Potential of wild species for genetic enhance- ment of some semi-arid food crops. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 50, 707\u2013721. Reddy, K. N., Upadhyaya, H. D., Reddy, L. J., & Gowda, C. L. L. (2006). Evaluation of pol- lination control methods for pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.) germplasm regenera- tion. International Chickpea and Pigeonpea Newsletter, 13, 35\u201338.\n\nReddy, L. J. (1973). Interrelationships of Cajanus and Atylosia species as revealed by hybridization and pachytene analysis. PhD Thesis. Kharagpur, India: Indian Institute of Technology.\n\nReddy, L. J., Kameswara Rao, N., & Saxena, K. B. (2001). Production and characterization of hybrids between Cajanus cajan \u00d7 C. reticulatus var. grandifolius. Euphytica, 121, 93\u201398. Reddy, L. J., Saxena, K. B., Jain, K. C., Singh, U., Green, J. M., Sharma, D., et al. (1997). Registration of high-protein pigeonpea elite germplasm ICPL 87162. Crop Science, 37, 294.\n\n200\n\nReddy, L. J., Upadhyaya, H. D., Gowda, C. L. L., & Singh, S. (2005). Development of core collection in pigeonpea [Cajanuscajan (L.) Millsp.] using geographical and qualitative morphological descriptors. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 52, 1049\u20131056. Remanandan, P., Sastry, D. V. S. S. R., & Mengesha Melak, H. (1988). ICRISAT Pigeonpea germplasm catalog: Evaluation and analysis. Patancheru, A.P., India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics."}


created_at: 2025-01-03 06:40:47
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 8f61d75c-d90c-411c-9079-da40d6cab7c3
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\BC_Pigeonpea_183-202_2013.pdf", "chroma:document": "200\n\nReddy, L. J., Upadhyaya, H. D., Gowda, C. L. L., & Singh, S. (2005). Development of core collection in pigeonpea [Cajanuscajan (L.) Millsp.] using geographical and qualitative morphological descriptors. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 52, 1049\u20131056. Remanandan, P., Sastry, D. V. S. S. R., & Mengesha Melak, H. (1988). ICRISAT Pigeonpea germplasm catalog: Evaluation and analysis. Patancheru, A.P., India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics.\n\nRoyes Vernon, W. (1976). Pigeonpea. In N. W. Simmonds (Ed.), Evolution of crop plants (pp.\n\n154\u2013156). London, UK: Longmans.\n\nRupela, O. P., Gowda, C. L. L., Wani, S. P., & Ranga Rao, G. V. (2004). Lessons from nonchemical input treatments based on scientific and traditional knowledge in a long- term experiment: Proceedings of the International Conference on Agricultural Heritage of Asia, 6\u20138 December 2004. (pp. 184\u2013196). Secunderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India: Asian Agri-History Foundation.\n\nSaxena, K. B. (2005). Pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.). In R. J. Singh & P. R. Jauhar (Eds.), Genetic resources, chromosome engineering and crop improvement (pp. 86\u2013115). New York: Taylor and Francis.\n\nSaxena, K. B., Faris, D. G., & Kumar, R. V. (1987). Relationship between seed size and pro- tein content in newly developed high protein lines of pigeonpea. Plant Foods and Human Nutrition, 36, 335\u2013340.\n\nSaxena, K. B., & Kumar, R. V. (2003). Development of cytoplasmic nuclear male-sterility sys- tem in pigeonpea using C. scarabaeoides (L.) Thours. Indian Journal of Genetics, 63(3), 225\u2013229.\n\nSaxena, K. B., Kumar, R. V., Dalvi, V. A., Mallikarjuna, N., Gowda, C. L. L., Singh, B. B., et al. (2005). Hybrid breeding in grain legumes \u2013 a success story of pigeonpea. In M. C. Khairwal & H. K. Jain (Eds.), Proceedings of the international food legumes research conference, New Delhi, India."}


created_at: 2025-01-03 06:40:47
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 35cb0371-8612-44bf-98ec-54227c988da5
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\BC_Pigeonpea_183-202_2013.pdf", "chroma:document": "Saxena, K. B., & Kumar, R. V. (2003). Development of cytoplasmic nuclear male-sterility sys- tem in pigeonpea using C. scarabaeoides (L.) Thours. Indian Journal of Genetics, 63(3), 225\u2013229.\n\nSaxena, K. B., Kumar, R. V., Dalvi, V. A., Mallikarjuna, N., Gowda, C. L. L., Singh, B. B., et al. (2005). Hybrid breeding in grain legumes \u2013 a success story of pigeonpea. In M. C. Khairwal & H. K. Jain (Eds.), Proceedings of the international food legumes research conference, New Delhi, India.\n\nSaxena, K. B., Kumar, R. V., Reddy, L. J., & Arora, A. (2003). Pigeonpea. In N. C. Singhal (Ed.), Hybrid seed production in field crops: principles and practices (pp. 163\u2013181). Ludhiana, India: Kalyani Publishers.\n\nSaxena, K. B., Kumar, R. V., Tikle, A. N., Saxena, M. K., Gautam, V. S., Rao, S. K., et al. (2013). ICPH 2671 \u2013 the world\u2019s first commercial food legume hybrid: Plant breeding reviews. Blackwell Verlag GmbH. pp. 1\u20137.\n\nSaxena, K. B., Singh, L., & Gupta, M. D. (1990). Variation for natural out-crossing in pigeon-\n\npea. Euphytica, 46, 143\u2013146.\n\nSaxena, K. B., Sultana, R., Mallikarjuna, N., Saxena, R. K., Kumar, R. V., Sawargaonkar, S. L., et al. (2010). Male-sterility systems in pigeonpea and their role in enhancing yield. Plant Breeding, 129, 125\u2013134.\n\nSaxena, R. K., Cui, X., Thakur, V., Walter, B., Close, T. J., & Varshney, R. K. (2011). Single feature polymorphisms (SFPs) for drought tolerance in pigeonpea (Cajanus spp.). Functional Integrative Genomics, 11, 651\u2013657.\n\nSaxena, R. K., Prathima, C., Saxena, K. B., Hoisington, D. A., Singh, N. K., & Varshney, R. K. (2010). Novel SSR markers for polymorphism detection in pigeonpea (Cajanus spp.). Plant Breeding, 129, 142\u2013148."}


created_at: 2025-01-03 06:40:47
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 25dc5ffc-3c2c-46b6-8a45-bb45031c986f
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\BC_Pigeonpea_183-202_2013.pdf", "chroma:document": "Saxena, R. K., Cui, X., Thakur, V., Walter, B., Close, T. J., & Varshney, R. K. (2011). Single feature polymorphisms (SFPs) for drought tolerance in pigeonpea (Cajanus spp.). Functional Integrative Genomics, 11, 651\u2013657.\n\nSaxena, R. K., Prathima, C., Saxena, K. B., Hoisington, D. A., Singh, N. K., & Varshney, R. K. (2010). Novel SSR markers for polymorphism detection in pigeonpea (Cajanus spp.). Plant Breeding, 129, 142\u2013148.\n\nSaxena, R. K., Saxena, K. B., Kumar, R. V., Hoisington, D. A., & Varshney, R. K. (2010). SSR- based diversity in elite pigeonpea genotypes for developing mapping populations to map resistance to Fusarium wilt and sterility mosaic disease. Plant Breeding, 129, 135\u2013141. Saxena, R. K., Saxena, K. B., & Varshney, R. K. (2010). Application of SSR markers for molecular characterization of hybrid parents and purity assessment of ICPH 2438 hybrid of pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millspaugh]. Molecular Breeding, 26, 371\u2013380.\n\n201\n\nSaxena, R. K., Varma Penmetsa, R., Upadhyaya, H. D., Kumar, A., Carrasquilla-Garcia, N., Schlueter, J. A., et al. (2012). Large-scale development of cost-effective single-nucleotide polymorphism marker assays for genetic mapping in pigeonpea and comparative map- ping in legumes. DNA Research, 19, 449\u2013461.\n\nShannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana:\n\nUniversity Illinois Press.\n\nSharma, D., Kannaiyan, J., & Saxena, K. B. (1987). Sources of resistance to alternaria blight\n\nin pigeonpea. SABRAO Journal, 19(2), 109\u2013114.\n\nSharma, H. C., Pampapathy, G., & Reddy, L. J. (2003). Wild relatives of pigeonpea as a source of resistance to the podfly (Melalagromyza obtuse Malloch) and pod wasp (Tranaostigmodes cajaninae La Salle). Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 50, 817\u2013824.\n\nSharma, H. C., Sujana, G., & Rao, D. M. (2009). Morphological and chemical components of resistance to pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera in wild relatives of pigeonpea. Arthropod\u2013 Plant Interactions, 3(3), 151\u2013161."}


created_at: 2025-01-03 06:40:47
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 3deb9fa7-c690-443f-83fc-5b35e54ca310
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\BC_Pigeonpea_183-202_2013.pdf", "chroma:document": "Sharma, H. C., Pampapathy, G., & Reddy, L. J. (2003). Wild relatives of pigeonpea as a source of resistance to the podfly (Melalagromyza obtuse Malloch) and pod wasp (Tranaostigmodes cajaninae La Salle). Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 50, 817\u2013824.\n\nSharma, H. C., Sujana, G., & Rao, D. M. (2009). Morphological and chemical components of resistance to pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera in wild relatives of pigeonpea. Arthropod\u2013 Plant Interactions, 3(3), 151\u2013161.\n\nSharma, M., Rathore, A., Mangala, U. N., Ghosh, R., Upadhyaya, H. D., Sharma, S., et al. (2012). New sources of resistance to Fusarium wilt and sterility mosaic disease in a mini-core col- lection of pigeonpea germplasm. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 133, 707\u2013714. Sharma, S. B. (1995). Resistance to Rotylenchulus reniformis, Heterodera cajani and Meloidogyne javanica in accessions of Cajanus platycarpus. Plant Disease, 79, 1033\u20131035. Sharma, S. B., Remanandan, P., & Jain, K. C. (1993). Resistance to cyst nematode (Heterodera cajani) in pigeonpea cultivars and wild relatives of Cajanus. Annals of Applied Biology, 123, 75\u201381.\n\nSharma, S. B., Remanandan, P., & McDonald, D. (1993). Resistance to Meloidogyne javan- ica and Rotylenchulus reniformis in wild relatives of pigeonpea. Journal in Nematology, 25(4S), 824\u2013829.\n\nSingh, U., & Jambunathan, R. (1981). Protease inhibitors and in vitro protein digestibility of pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.] and its wild relatives. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 18, 246\u2013247.\n\nSivaramakrishnan, S., Seetha, K., & Reddy, L. J. (2002). Diversity in selected wild and culti-\n\nvated species of pigeonpea using RFLP of mtDNA. Euphytica, 125, 21\u201328."}


created_at: 2025-01-03 06:40:47
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: a83ebdc8-16f7-4d39-8f90-ba088e95a720
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\BC_Pigeonpea_183-202_2013.pdf", "chroma:document": "Singh, U., & Jambunathan, R. (1981). Protease inhibitors and in vitro protein digestibility of pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.] and its wild relatives. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 18, 246\u2013247.\n\nSivaramakrishnan, S., Seetha, K., & Reddy, L. J. (2002). Diversity in selected wild and culti-\n\nvated species of pigeonpea using RFLP of mtDNA. Euphytica, 125, 21\u201328.\n\nSrivastava, N., Vadez, V., Upadhyaya, H. D., & Saxena, K. B. (2006). Screening for intra and inter specific variability for salinity tolerance in pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan) and its related wild species. Journal of SAT Agricultural Research, 2, 12. <http://icrtest:8080/ Journal/crop improvement v2il/ v2il screening for. Pdf>.\n\nSubbarao, G. V. (1988). Salinity tolerance in pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.) and its\n\nwild relatives. PhD Thesis. Kharagpur, India: Indian Institute Technology.\n\nSubbarao, G. V., Johansen, C., Jana, M. K., & Rao, J. D. V. K. (1991). Comparative salinity responses among pigeonpea genotype and their wild relatives. Crop Science, 31, 415\u2013418. Subbarao, G. V., Johansen, C., Kumar Rao, J. V. D. K., & Jana, M. K. (1990). Salinity tolerance in F1 hybrids of pigeonpea and a tolerant wild relative. Crop Science, 30(4), 785\u2013788. Sujana, G., Sharma, H. C., & Rao, D. M. (2008). Antixenosis and antibiosis compo- nents of resistance to pod borer Helicoverpa armigera in wild relatives of pigeonpea. International Journal of Tropical Insect Science, 28(4), 191\u2013200.\n\nThudi, M., Li, Y., Jackson, S. A., May, G. D., & Varshney, R. K. (2012). Current state-of-art of sequencing technologies for plant genomics research. Briefings in Functional Genomics, 11, 3\u201311.\n\nTikka, S. B. S., Parmar, L. D., & Chauhan, R. M. (1997). First record of cytoplasmic-genic male sterility system in pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.) through wide hybridiza- tion. Gujarat Agricultural University Research Journal, 22(2), 160\u2013162.\n\n202"}


created_at: 2025-01-03 06:40:47
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 31e3b17c-c6e6-4b2c-84e5-f1074731dabf
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\BC_Pigeonpea_183-202_2013.pdf", "chroma:document": "Thudi, M., Li, Y., Jackson, S. A., May, G. D., & Varshney, R. K. (2012). Current state-of-art of sequencing technologies for plant genomics research. Briefings in Functional Genomics, 11, 3\u201311.\n\nTikka, S. B. S., Parmar, L. D., & Chauhan, R. M. (1997). First record of cytoplasmic-genic male sterility system in pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.) through wide hybridiza- tion. Gujarat Agricultural University Research Journal, 22(2), 160\u2013162.\n\n202\n\nUpadhyaya, H. D. (2008). Crop germplasm and wild relatives: a source of novel variation for\n\ncrop improvement. Korean Journal of Crop Science, 53, 12\u201317. ISSN 0252-9777.\n\nUpadhyaya, H. D., Bhattacharjee, R., Varshney, R. K., Hoisington, D. A., Reddy, K. N., & Singh, S. (2008). Assessment of genetic diversity in pigeonpea using SSR markers. In Annual Joint Meeting of ASA/CSSA, Houston, USA, 5\u20139 October 2008 (Abstracts No. 657-3).\n\nUpadhyaya, H. D., Dronavalli, N., Gowda, C. L. L., & Singh, S. (2012). Mini core collec- tions for enhanced utilization of genetic resources in crop improvement. Indian Journal of Plant Genetic Resources, 25, 111\u2013124. ISSN 0976-1926.\n\nUpadhyaya, H. D., & Gowda, C. L. L. (2009). Managing and enhancing the use of germ- plasm \u2013 strategies and methodologies: Technical Manual No. 10. Patancheru, India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics.\n\nUpadhyaya, H. D., & Oritz, R. (2001). A mini core subset for capturing diversity and pro- moting utilization of chickpea genetic resources in crop improvement. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 102, 1292\u20131298.\n\nUpadhyaya, H. D., Pundir, R. P. S., Gowda, C. L. L., Reddy, K. N., & Singh, S. (2005). Geographical patterns of diversity for qualitative and quantitative traits in the pigeonpea germplasm collection. Plant Genetic Resources, 3(3), 331\u2013352."}


created_at: 2025-01-03 06:40:47
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 3d8a26d9-c12b-44bf-b6bf-90250b0124a9
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\BC_Pigeonpea_183-202_2013.pdf", "chroma:document": "Upadhyaya, H. D., & Oritz, R. (2001). A mini core subset for capturing diversity and pro- moting utilization of chickpea genetic resources in crop improvement. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 102, 1292\u20131298.\n\nUpadhyaya, H. D., Pundir, R. P. S., Gowda, C. L. L., Reddy, K. N., & Singh, S. (2005). Geographical patterns of diversity for qualitative and quantitative traits in the pigeonpea germplasm collection. Plant Genetic Resources, 3(3), 331\u2013352.\n\nUpadhyaya, H. D., Reddy, L. J., Gowda, C. L. L., Reddy, K. N., & Singh, S. (2006). Development of a mini core subset for enhanced and diversified utilization of pigeonpea germplasm resources. Crop Science, 46, 2127\u20132132.\n\nUpadhyaya, H. D., Yadav, D., Dronavalli, N., Gowda, C. L. L., & Singh, S. (2010). Mini core germplasm collection for infusing genetic diversity in plant breeding programs. Electronic Journal of Plant Breeding, 1(4), 1294.\n\nvan der Maesen, L. J. G. (1980). India is the native home of the pigeonpea. In J. C. Arends, G. Boelema, C. T. de Groot, & A. J. M. Leeuwenberg (Eds.), Liber gratulatorius in nonerem H.C.D. de Wit. Landbouwhogeschool Miscellaneous Paper no. 19. Wageningen, The Netherlands: H. Veenman and B.V. Zonen.\n\nvan der Maesen, L. J. G. (1990). Pigeonpea origin, history, evolution, and taxonomy. In Y. L. Nene, S. D. Hall, & V. K. Sheila (Eds.), The pigeonpea (pp. 15\u201346). Wallingford, Oxon, UK: CAB International.\n\nVarshney, R. K., Chen, W., Li, Y., Bharti, A. K., Saxena, R. K., Schlueter, J. A., et al. (2012). Draft genome sequence of pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan), an orphan legume crop of resource-poor farmers. Nature Biotechnology, 30, 83\u201389.\n\nVavilov, N. I. (1951). The origin, variation, immunity and breeding of cultivated plants.\n\nChronica Botanica, 13(1\u20136), 1\u2013366.\n\nWanjari, K. B., Patil, A. N., Manapure, P., Manjaya, J. G., & Manish, P. (2001). Cytoplasmic male-sterility with cytoplasm from Cajanus volubilis. Annuals Plant Physiology, 13, 170\u2013174."}


created_at: 2025-01-03 06:40:47
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: ac5b1d2b-83ae-43dd-89f8-b0e230e375f8
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\BC_Pigeonpea_183-202_2013.pdf", "chroma:document": "Vavilov, N. I. (1951). The origin, variation, immunity and breeding of cultivated plants.\n\nChronica Botanica, 13(1\u20136), 1\u2013366.\n\nWanjari, K. B., Patil, A. N., Manapure, P., Manjaya, J. G., & Manish, P. (2001). Cytoplasmic male-sterility with cytoplasm from Cajanus volubilis. Annuals Plant Physiology, 13, 170\u2013174.\n\nYang, S., Pang, W., Ash, G., Harper, J., Carling, J., Wenzl, P., et al. (2006). Low level of genetic diversity in cultivated pigeonpea compared to its wild relatives is revealed by diversity arrays technology. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 113, 585\u2013595.\n\nYang, S. Y., Saxena, R. K., Kulwal, P. L., Ash, G. J., Dubey, A., Harpe, J. D. I., et al. (2011). The first genetic map of pigeonpea based on diversity arrays technology (DArT) markers. Journal of Genetics, 90, 103\u2013109."}


created_at: 2025-01-03 06:40:47
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 604fc145-8f88-4718-ad74-c368f9d3ec70
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\HandbookOfPigeonpeaDiseases.pdf", "chroma:document": "Abstract\n\nR e d d y, M.V., R a j u, T . N ., S h a r m a, S . B ., N e n e, Y . L, a nd M c D o n a l d, D. 1993. H a n d b o ok of p i g e o n p ea d i s e a s e s. (In E n. S u m m a r i es in E n ., Fr.) Information Bulletin n o. 4 2. P a t a n- c h e r u, A . P. 5 02 3 2 4, India: International C r o ps R e s e a r ch Insti- tute for t he S e m i - A r id T r o p i c s. 64 p p. ISBN 9 2 - 9 0 6 6 - 2 7 7 - 8. O r d er c o de IBE 0 4 2.\n\nP i g e o n p ea (C a j a n us cajan (L.) Millsp.) is o ne of t he m o st im- portant g r a in l e g u me c o m p o n e n ts of s u b s i s t e n ce f a r m i ng s y s- t e ms in t he s e m i - a r id t r o p i c s. M a ny f u n g i, v i r u s e s, n e m a t o d e s, bacteria, a nd m y c o p l a s m a - l i ke o r g a n i s ms attack p i g e o n p e a, but only a few of t h e se are important c o n s t r a i n ts to p i g e o n p ea p r o d u c t i o n. T h is bulletin p r o v i d es information on t he c a u s al a g e n t s, distribution, e c o n o m ic i m p o r t a n c e, s y m p t o m s, e p i d e m- iology, a nd m a n a g e m e nt of m a j or d i s e a s es of p i g e o n p e a. T he text is s u p p l e m e n t ed w i th color p h o t o g r a p hs of d i s e a se s y m p- t o ms a nd a diagnostic k ey is i n c l u d ed to facilitate identification. Information is p r o v i d ed on control m e a s u r es that i n c l u de t he u se of resistant varieties, cultural p r a c t i c e s, a nd c h e m i c a l s. S u p p o r t i ng literature on t he m a j or d i s e a s es is listed.\n\nC o v e r: Collar rot\n\n(S c l e r o t i um\n\nrolfsii) kills s e e d l i n gs at\n\np r i m a ry leaf s t a g e.\n\nt he\n\nHandbook of Pigeonpea Diseases\n\nM.V. Reddy, T.N. Raju, S.B. Sharma, Y.L. Nene, and D. McDonald\n\nICRISAT\n\nInformation Bulletin no. 42\n\nInternational Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh 502 324, India\n\n1993"}


created_at: 2025-01-03 06:40:47
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 52cb1a86-a3a3-4691-8190-becc0fe79c99
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\HandbookOfPigeonpeaDiseases.pdf", "chroma:document": "C o v e r: Collar rot\n\n(S c l e r o t i um\n\nrolfsii) kills s e e d l i n gs at\n\np r i m a ry leaf s t a g e.\n\nt he\n\nHandbook of Pigeonpea Diseases\n\nM.V. Reddy, T.N. Raju, S.B. Sharma, Y.L. Nene, and D. McDonald\n\nICRISAT\n\nInformation Bulletin no. 42\n\nInternational Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh 502 324, India\n\n1993\n\nC o p y r i g h t\u00a9 1 9 93 by t he I n t e r n a t i o n al C r o ps R e s e a r ch I n s t i t u te\n\nfor t he S e m i - A r id T r o p i cs (ICRISAT).\n\nAll r i g h ts r e s e r v e d. E x c e pt for q u o t a t i o ns of s h o rt p a s s a g es for\n\nt he p u r p o se of c r i t i c i sm a nd r e v i e w, no p a rt of t h is p u b l i c a t i on\n\nm ay be r e p r o d u c e d, s t o r ed in retrieval s y s t e m s, or t r a n s m i t t ed\n\nin a ny form or by a ny m e a n s, e l e c t r o n i c, m e c h a n i c a l, p h o t o-\n\nc o p y i n g, r e c o r d i n g, or o t h e r w i s e, w i t h o ut p r i or p e r m i s s i on f r om\n\nICRISAT. T he I n s t i t u te d o es not r e q u i re p a y m e nt for t he n o n-\n\nc o m m e r c i al u se of its p u b l i s h ed w o r k s, a nd h o p es t h at t h is\n\nC o p y r i g ht d e c l a r a t i on w i ll n ot d i m i n i sh t he b o na f i de u se of its\n\nr e s e a r ch f i n d i n gs in a g r i c u l t u r al r e s e a r ch a nd d e v e l o p m e n t.\n\nT he d e s i g n a t i o ns e m p l o y ed a nd\n\nt he p r e s e n t a t i on of\n\nt he\n\nmaterial in t h is p u b l i c a t i on do not i m p ly t he e x p r e s s i on of a ny\n\no p i n i on w h a t s o e v er on\n\nt he p a rt of\n\nICRISAT c o n c e r n i ng t he\n\nlegal status of a ny c o u n t r y, t e r r i t o r y, c i t y, or a r e a, or c o n-\n\nc e r n i ng t he d e l i m i t a t i on of its f r o n t i e rs or b o u n d a r i e s. W h e re\n\nt r a de n a m es a re u s e d, t h is d o es not c o n s t i t u te e n d o r s e m e nt of\n\nor d i s c r i m i n a t i on a g a i n st a ny p r o d u ct by t he Institute.\n\nContents"}


created_at: 2025-01-03 06:40:47
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 25210d6a-1bc6-432c-b955-63ca46032e02
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\HandbookOfPigeonpeaDiseases.pdf", "chroma:document": "o p i n i on w h a t s o e v er on\n\nt he p a rt of\n\nICRISAT c o n c e r n i ng t he\n\nlegal status of a ny c o u n t r y, t e r r i t o r y, c i t y, or a r e a, or c o n-\n\nc e r n i ng t he d e l i m i t a t i on of its f r o n t i e rs or b o u n d a r i e s. W h e re\n\nt r a de n a m es a re u s e d, t h is d o es not c o n s t i t u te e n d o r s e m e nt of\n\nor d i s c r i m i n a t i on a g a i n st a ny p r o d u ct by t he Institute.\n\nContents\n\nI n t r o d u c t i on\n\nD i s e a s es t h at Kill t he P l a nt\n\nCollar Rot P h y t o p h t h o ra Blight F u s a r i um Wilt Dry Root Rot P h o ma S t em C a n k er A n t h r a c n o se W a t e r l o g g i ng\n\nLeaf S p o t s, B l i g h t s, a nd D e f o l i a t i ng D i s e a s es\n\nBacterial Leaf S p ot a nd S t em C a n k er Powdery M i l d ew C e r c o s p o ra Leaf Spot A l t e r n a r ia Blight Phyllosticta Leaf S p ot F u s a r i um Leaf Blight Rust Halo Blight Botrytis G r ay M o ld M a r g i n al Leaf B u r n i ng\n\nM o s a i cs a nd Sterility\n\nSterility M o s a ic\n\nY e l l ow M o s a ic W i t c h e s' B r o om P h y l l o dy B r a c t e o m a n ia\n\nS t u n t i ng\n\nRoot-knot Pearly R o ot Dirty R o ot\n\nD i s e a se M a n a g e m e nt S o u r c es of R e s i s t a n ce S o u r c es of Multiple R e s i s t a n ce Cultural P r a c t i c es C h e m i c al Control\n\nK ey to t he D i a g n o s is of M a j or D i s e a s es\n\nS u p p o r t i ng Literature\n\nS u b j e ct I n d ex\n\n2\n\n4 4 6\n\n8\n\n12 14 14\n\n16\n\n18 18 20 22 24 26 26 28 28 30 30\n\n32 32 34 36 36 38\n\n40 40 42 44\n\n46 46 48 49 53\n\n56\n\n59\n\n60\n\nIntroduction"}


created_at: 2025-01-03 06:40:47
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: b55188ad-b92d-4988-b074-3b784e6404fd
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\HandbookOfPigeonpeaDiseases.pdf", "chroma:document": "S t u n t i ng\n\nRoot-knot Pearly R o ot Dirty R o ot\n\nD i s e a se M a n a g e m e nt S o u r c es of R e s i s t a n ce S o u r c es of Multiple R e s i s t a n ce Cultural P r a c t i c es C h e m i c al Control\n\nK ey to t he D i a g n o s is of M a j or D i s e a s es\n\nS u p p o r t i ng Literature\n\nS u b j e ct I n d ex\n\n2\n\n4 4 6\n\n8\n\n12 14 14\n\n16\n\n18 18 20 22 24 26 26 28 28 30 30\n\n32 32 34 36 36 38\n\n40 40 42 44\n\n46 46 48 49 53\n\n56\n\n59\n\n60\n\nIntroduction\n\nPigeonpea (Cajanus cajan (L) Millsp.) is an important grain legume crop of rainfed agriculture in t he semi-arid tropics. T he Indian sub-continent, eastern Africa, a nd central A m e r i c a, in that order, are t he world's three main pigeonpea-producing regions. Pigeonpea is culti- vated in more t h an 25 tropical and sub-tropical c o u n- tries, either as a sole crop or intermixed w i th such cereals as sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench], pearl millet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.], or maize (Z ea mays L.), or with legumes, e.g., groundnut (Arachis hy- pogaea L.). Being a legume, pigeonpea enriches t he soil through symbiotic nitrogen fixation. A short-day plant with a d e ep root system, pigeonpea tolerates drought, but is highly sensitive to waterlogging. T he crop has many uses; fresh pigeon peas are eaten as a vegetable, the grain is c o o k ed a nd eaten as dhal (dry split cotyledons), t he w o od is used as fuel, a nd the leaves a nd husks provide livestock feed."}


created_at: 2025-01-03 06:40:47
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 6b086967-1fd6-49b0-b704-60c0de819e22
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\HandbookOfPigeonpeaDiseases.pdf", "chroma:document": "lands by re- is cultivated on marginal source-poor farmers, w ho commonly g r ow traditional m e d i u m- a nd long-duration (5-11 months) landraces. Short-duration p i g e o n p e as (3-4 months) suitable for multiple cropping have recently been developed. Tradi- tionally, t he u se of such inputs as fertilizers, w e e d i n g, irrigation, a nd pesticides are minimal, so present yield levels are low (average = 7 00 kg ha- 1). Greater atten- tion is now being given to managing t he crop b e c a u se it is in high d e m a nd at remunerative prices. T h e re is also a trend away to sole traditional cropping.\n\nT he crop\n\nfrom\n\nintercropping\n\nDiseases are major biological constraints to produc- tion and more t h an 60 pathogens including fungi, bac- teria, viruses, m y c o p l a s m a, and nematodes c an infect pigeonpeas. Fortunately, only a few of t h em c a u se eco- nomic losses. Of t h e s e, sterility mosaic a nd w i t c h e s' broom are region-specific, w h e r e as others such as f u- sarium wilt are w i d e s p r e ad across regions.\n\n2\n\nThis h a n d b o ok h as been prepared to assist in field diagnosis of pigeonpea diseases. T he d i s e a s es are g r o u p ed according to t he kind of d a m a ge t h ey c a u s e. In addition to symptomatology, information on distribu- tion, e c o n o m ic importance, epidemiology, a nd control m e a s u r es is included to m a ke t he handbook m o re use- ful to growers, scientists, a nd extension practitioners.\n\n3\n\nDiseases that Kill the Plant\n\nThis Section deals with several diseases caused by fungi, one caused by a bacterium, and one abiotic stress\u2014waterlogging\u2014that commonly result in death of plants.\n\nCollar Rot\n\nSclerotium\n\nrolfsii Saccardo\n\nDistribution. India, Pakistan, Puerto Rico, Sri Lanka, Trinidad and Tobago, USA, and Venezuela."}


created_at: 2025-01-03 06:40:47
topic: persistent://default/default/8a6ab42b-793b-429e-9d94-215fd4abe728
id: 3be523f0-b62e-4b94-8490-b8c3146ccbd9
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source": "Data\\HandbookOfPigeonpeaDiseases.pdf", "chroma:document": "3\n\nDiseases that Kill the Plant\n\nThis Section deals with several diseases caused by fungi, one caused by a bacterium, and one abiotic stress\u2014waterlogging\u2014that commonly result in death of plants.\n\nCollar Rot\n\nSclerotium\n\nrolfsii Saccardo\n\nDistribution. India, Pakistan, Puerto Rico, Sri Lanka, Trinidad and Tobago, USA, and Venezuela.\n\nEconomic that can losses w h en u n d e c o m p o s ed organic cause severe matter is left on the surface of seedbeds. Pigeonpea following cereal crops such as sorghum is likely to be infected if stubbles have not been cleared from the field.\n\nimportance. A minor disease\n\nEpidemiology. Temperatures of about 30\u00b0C and soil moisture at sowing predispose seedlings to infection. In India the disease is more of a problem in early-sown (June) than in later-sown crops.\n\nS y m p t o m s. A seedling disease that usually appears within a month of sowing, w h en patches of dead seed- lings at the primary leaf stage are seen, scattered over the field (Fig. 1). The seedlings may turn slightly chloro- tic before they die. The confirmatory symptom is rotting in the collar region that is covered with white mycelial growth; this differentiates collar rot from other seedling diseases caused by Fusarium, Rhizoctonia, or Py- thium. Seedlings affected by collar rot can be uprooted easily, but the lower part of their root usually remains in soil. Sometimes white or brown sclerotial bodies of the fungus can be found attached to the collar region of a d e ad seedling or in the soil around it.\n\n4\n\n5\n\n1\n\nPhytophthora Blight\n\nPhytophthora drechsleri Tucker f. sp. cajani\n\n( M a h e n d ra Pal, Grewal & S a r b h o y) K a n n a i y a n,\n\nRibeiro, Erwin & Nene\n\nDistribution. Dominican Republic, India, Kenya, Pan- ama, and Puerto Rico.\n\nEconomic importance. A devastating disease that kills young (1-7 week-old) plants, leaving large gaps in plant stands. Yield losses are usually higher in short- duration pigeonpeas than in m e d i u m- and long-dura- tion types."}


